Confirmed: Benicio Del Toro's Role In STAR TREK 2 Is...

Beaks here with breaking news from the good folks over at Vulture. According to their sources, talks broke down last Wednesday between Benicio Del Toro's people and Paramount due to, what else, money. Wednesday is key here, since it was last Friday when J.J. Abrams told HitFix's Drew McWeeny it was "not true" that - as alleged by Latino Review - Del Toro would be playing Khan in STAR TREK 2. Basically, Abrams's terse response was in reference to Latino Review's entire story, not specifically to the notion that Khan is the villain in STAR TREK 2.

So feel free to speculate anew! Is Khan in STAR TREK 2? (Vulture agrees with Latino Review that he is.) Who should play him? (Luis Guzman.) And, given that this is a completely different timeline, will he indeed be a villain?

Pretty sure Khan is an evil bastard to the core.
Of course he'd be a villain, just because Kirk might not maroon him this time, he's still going to be a villain.
Anyways, who cares. Don't re-do Khan, the magic was already captured, and you're not gonna re-capture it, do something original please. Thanks.

Wasn't he the genetic-engineered super-human ruler of south Asia? Yes, he was played very well by a Mexican-American actor, but that doesn't mean you can just plug in any Hispanic actor into the part and call it done.

They discover the Captain was only going back in to space to destroy a nightmare from his past. THE DOOMSDAY DEVICE!
Upon discovery, they must work together to destroy it before it reaches the newly discovered Klingon home world.
However they fail to stop it in time from destroying a major Klingon shipyard and the Klingons blame the Federation and their super weapon, thus starting the rift between the two.
After some initial skirmishing, the Klingons and Federation ships unite in an uneasy truce to destroy it. A lone wolf in the Klingon empire continues to harass the assisting Federation ships, and meets it's match when it attempts to destroy Kirk and the Enterprise under the fog of war with the Doomsday Device.
The film ends with the rouge Klingon destroyed and an uneasy truce that everyone knows won't hold.

...I'd like to see them think outside the box a little. A thick accent is hardly necessary, but you need someone with a HUGE presence and acting acumen. You need someone stage-trained, with theatrical roots, not just someone that looks pretty and can act on camera.
Honestly, I've never liked Benicio, so I'm not too disappointed that he's not going to participate. There's something sleazy about each of his performances, and I think that's just the wrong aura for Khan.
You need a man in his late 30's to early 40's, as (if it's Khan) he needs to be old enough to have ruled earth for a time before being shipped off-planet. (Even in the alternate universe, the events of "Space Seed" are still part of the universe, so Khan's floating out there somewhere.)
My Choices:
• Esai Morales. Though he'll be pushing 50 next year, I think he's got the intensity to do well. Stephen Lang was even older in Avatar and you can't say he wasn't menacing.
• Alfred Molina. Sadly, I think he's a bit too old, and he'd have to drop some weight, but god he owns every scene he's in.
• Cliff Curtis. Physically, he fits the role and has an intensity that works. The main problem is that he's not a "name" which is what you want to balance out the cast list.
• Naveen Andrews. I worry that physically Naveen isn't "big" enough for the part, but he's got a good look for it. I'd stick him in a gym for six months and work on giving him a lean, hungry look. I'm just not sure he's got the intensity to pull it off, though.
As with all prognostication, I'm certain that none of these gentlemen will win the part. But it's sure fun to speculate.
----
That said, Montalban will always be THE Khan to me, but unfortunately times do change.

Stop rehashing the past. Create something new.
Repeat this to yourself, and don't stop until it sinks in. Strange, new worlds. Strange, new worlds. Strange, new worlds.
Give us an exhilarating sense of wonder, and then throw some totally new danger into the mix, never seen before.
If you insist on drawing from things already done, at least make it something that hasn't been seen a dozen times before, like the Tholians or the Gorn. And for frik's sake, NO MORE TIME TRAVEL.
Take any exec that suggests a remake of Khan, drag them into an alley behind the studio, and shoot them twice in the back of the head, gangster style.

Just the Wrath of Nero? So... Can we please not do this at all? How about a full-scale war movie? Enterprise fucks up a treaty negotiation because Kirk violates the Prime Directive saving a piece of hot alien tail, and the Enterprise must forge a neutral zone or be fired on from both sides.

Why Stallone?
Because Khan needs just two things to succeed.
Crazy fake looking uber pumped pecs. Check.
Crazy charisma over acting bad acting but cant take your eyes off it cool. Check.
Only one human being on Earth right now could step into Ricardo Montalban's shoes...
STALLONE IS KHAN

Anything else. The Klingons, Ferengi, shit, do the damn Borg, but don't stomp on one of the iconic geek performances of all time.
C'mon JJ, use that creative gourd of yours to put a spin on something else.

Right nationality, JJ Abrams connection. He would be the best for the role, but it sounds like they want to go with a name actior. Although they are going go with Peter Weller as the other villian and he isn't a huge name.

LAWL. Assuming it IS Khan, he will be a good guy who helps the Enterprise crew in a skirmish, and sacrifices himself to destroy the (not)Genesis Device. Abrams only knows how to Shyamalan pop-culture tropes.

this he's in- he's out - he's in - he's out- khan might be the baddie because latino review wants it that way- will kahn be in these movies at all -etc etc etc-
this shit isn't even news! i get more info from the talkbacks. it's like the roles reversed and now AICN articles are just two sentence musings.

Remember Montelban wasn't known as a tough or an antagonist in general, and his most recognizable appearance in the states is Fantasy Island, so previous career choices aren't really an issue when comparing some of Banderas's lighter fair. He has the Latin swagger, and with age he has developed what could be the perfect temperament for Khan, obviously he's done his share of action, even some psychological thriller work. it's up to the writers to make Neo-Khan as memorable as Khan-Prime, but I think Banderas could be the perfect off the wall choice that would also lend a sense of age and experience they would have had with Del Toro, with significantly more charm, safe to say.

Just a tired pop-culture mashup pile of bullshit.
The first film tread that line, of course, with all of the "Jim Henson's Star Trek Babies" imitations going on by the cast.
Say what you will about all the incarnations of Trek, but one thing it has never done is just redo itself. Echo itself, sure, but not just literally the same exact story again.
Khan's story has already been told, well enough. This is the point at which this new Trek becomes either the worthy next step in the franchise, or just a tired cash-grab.
If it's Khan, it's garbage.

The Wrath of Khan was a result of Kirk's handling of the events of "Space Seed." Ostensibly, if the film is indeed about Khan, Chris Pine & Co. would be dealing with the early Khan, who is an unknown entity.
The writers have almost unlimited freedom to work within the Khan framework, meaning you have a megalomaniac genius with superhuman strength and concentration. The writers can think much, much bigger than the Space Seed episode for this one.
Imagine instead that Khan had been freed from cryosleep but instead of meeting Kirk, he'd met a different captain and had gotten back to Earth. The dynamics would have been entirely different and Khan could have led an all-new effort to conquer earth.
The possibilities are wide open, so stop limiting this to "Wrath of Khan II."

As I said in my last post, both Andrews and Khan are from India. Yes, Khan was supposed to be Sikh which means he probably came from northern India and Andrews' parents are Kerlian which is southern India, they are all Indian. Granted northern and southern Indians have very different cultures.

I understand the cultural differences between the two regions, but they are still Indians which means they are the same nationality. From a physical standpoint, there isn't any really differences between the two. There are cultural differences.
And the Travolta/Jackson reference is ridiculous. You show both those actors to an Indian audience and ask them which one is black, every single one of them is going to know the answer. You ask an American audience to look at a Sikh and Semite actor and ask them to identify the difference they won't.

Interesting name. I can tell you what happened to you - you were born breach, and thus, did not get enough oxygen at the moment of birth, so you became profoundly retarded.
The people in the middle eastern region are all pretty much from the same lineage. Your logic would not allow an episcopalian to play a catholic, even if they were from the exact same race.
You, sir, are a gigantic fucking idiot.

jdanielp, yep you're right - if they can't afford Benicio Del Toro (and let's face it he'd probably take the gig for 6g's of coke and a bottle of rum) then they can't afford any 'name' actor.
My dream of Stallone as Khan will have to remain a dream.
Maybe a leftfield choice?
Christina Hendricks as Khan. Yes, I know she's a woman. But she's one of the few human beings on the planet with a chest to rival Montalbans. And I for one would like to see more of it.

It splits off when Nero comes through, but everything that happened before TOS and ST2009 (including Enterprise) is still canon. So having Kahn as a female would make no sense, unless it's a daughter or something.

Why would they rehash the Story of Khan? It's been told! They re-rote Star Trek history so they can do what ever they want with the franchise. I don't want to see a new version of Khan. how about some originality for a change?

Aamir is a way better actor, although Shahrukh probably has the physical edge. Shahrukh is like Tom Cruise short, but Pine is pretty short too, so it should not stand out too much. I'd put Abishek Bachchan out there too.

I'd love to see them come out of left field and use one of the older novels as a basis for a story. The two that come to mind are Price of the Phoenix and Blackfire.
If you haven't read either of these, they're worth a look.

Yep. You got it.
Different timeline = totally different set of circumstances for the discovery of the Botany Bay. Maybe klingons find them and make common cause vs Earth. Maybe Khan fights the Gorn as the Thetans look on. Hell, maybe he rallies the remaining Vulcans and creates and goes after the Romulans.
Who the fuck knows.
Those who want a brand new villian are gonna end up with another tap water Nero.

Look at this photo of Shahrukh Khan. He looks perfect for the role here...he even looks like he's wearing a Star Trek-esque costume: <p>
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-IDBPayeKVw/S3YlV9mDZRI/AAAAAAAAA5U/3xSR-GPpqVw/s400/srk+angry.jpg <p>
Then watch this clip....: <p>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07HPqJQRROw

...he is worth $15 Million for 30 minutes in a movie roll?
That is a cool half million per minute of screen time.
And, of course, he probably wouldn't even be in 30 minutes worth of footage.
:-\
BTW, he was never going to be Khan. They wouldn't touch that character. From all of the leaks online, it appears that the villain is entirely new.

and there will be a time-travel glitch/trick somewhere; we need to meet Khan when he is Master of Earth, and then watch him fall from grace. The novels were terrific in that respect. There's an especially great scene where he single-handedly breaks into to a genetics research centre, only to find out that the guards are all terrific marksman, and martial artists to boot, and he nearly gets his ass handed to him, except that one of the female Indian scientists has a thing for him, and he charms his way out of danger. Fast, furious, and funny!

He's Indian and a trek alumnae (played Dr. Bashir on DS9 for 7 years). Also a great actor that has played big roles in cool movies like Syriana and Kingdom of Heaven. If he could beef up and bring the intensity he could own the role.

...I'm not going to see it. I hated the first movie, but I'm actually looking forward to the next movie. Why? Because now that they have the origin story out of the way, and we're over the shock of the new universe, they can start telling their own stories. Wasn't that the point of the reboot? Why would they do a Khan story? Who do they think they're making happy? Old school fans don't want to see someone else as Khan. And new fans have no idea who he is. They did one thing right with this reboot. They nailed the cast. It's perfect. So just tell your own stories and forget about the original series. If you want to have a Harry Mudd cameo, fine. Show Mudd making the deal to buy his very first Tribble. Have original Spock walk by and say "I wouldn't do that if I were you". Done. Move on. Have Gary Mitchell, or Number One in the cast as background players. But please, no remakes of episodes.

Aren't going to do better than that, unless--wait-- you want charisma, intensity, etc. He doesn't have any--and if he does, he hasn't shown it in anything I've seen him in. He's Kevin Costner vanilla.
I still would want Michael Shannon for Khan but he's doing Zod already. Shannon could play any race and because of his face, he could pull it off. And the Oscar goes to... Michael Shannon for My Mamas Sweet on Obama.

If stats show they put butts in seats. If Del Toro demanded too much, it is because the execs crunched the data and concluded nope, he wasn't worth it. Del Toro is a fine actor, but not much of a "star" in terms of bringin' em to the box office. I see no problem with people getting paid if they can reasonably prove they can bring money to the project--which is what "stars" as opposed to "actors" are. Some stars are fine actors, and some actors are terrific stars. Some actors have no box office draw at all--pure support. And some huge stars aren't much as acting goes (Arnold, anyone? He was an o.k. actor, but HUGELY charismatic). Del Toro is as charismatic as drying paint. But a terrific actor.

First, everyone who is from India have the nationality of Indian. It doesn't matter what part of India they come from. Someone from Florida is just as much of an American as someone from Massachusetts. Both Khan and Andrews are the same nationality.
Second, I admit I don't know enough about Indian culture and religions. I know Sikh is a religion, but that is about all we know about Khan from the original Star Trek. Most Sikhs in India are located in the northern regions of India. I know that Andrews' parents come from the south.
Third, you are confusing race with nationality. There are a number of different races in India from Asia to Middle Eastern African to to Nordic, but everyone who lives in India or are from India are the same nationality.
Fourth, just because you know the different races in India, doesn't mean most Americans or even people of the world do. Yes, I can tell there is a racial difference between Naveen Andrews and Ben Kingsley, but I do also know their nationality is Indian.
So my original point is correct. Andrews is the same nationality of Khan. He might not be the same race as Khan, but he certainly shares the same nationality.

There's a whole new time-space galaxy for them to explore, why get so locked into specific characters? Maybe have Mudd somewhere in the background, but screw the old main characters. Get some new ones!

Yeah, Nestor Carbonell would be perfect, I can see him in Space Seed, beat for beat. He'd probably play the guy closer to his conception as a genetically engineered 20th century tyrant than the kind of romantic prince Montalban played in the episode (still, he rocked, don't get me wrong). And, yes, I am offended by people engaged in essentially the most high profile theme park work in the universe pushing for these obscenely high salaries as the rest of the country turns into a giant McGhetto. Nestor, God love him, might even be affordable.
T.'.

...then talkbackers will have nothing to talk about since they will have no knowledge of the new villain. So....this is how it is to be played until the casting of the villain is announced....then the announcement that its a new character if thats a case...then the focus will switch to that actor and how much he sucks. Then further plot points will come out. Then a teaser. Then a poster. Then a trailer, and a few more. Then a screening. Then a flood of movie reviews...and then this film we be forgotten and everyone will be talking about the latest superhero movie, or a script will be announced for the next Indy film...or Robert Downey jr will be starring in a remake of a film that is near and dear to everyone's hearts from their childhood as everyone desperately tries to regress back to their childhood....and the womb.... <p>
ROSEBUD......ROSEBUD......ROSEBUD......

He was TRULY going to play Khan.He knew how iconic that character was and he knew that it is the best bait for a Trek movie to make huge grosses.So he wanted his due shares.He wanted bigger percentages from his performance,more money than the usual paycheks he was getting during his career.
Ofc the studio refused to his demands and now they are searching for someone other less known latin or even indian actor to pull this character with smaller payment.
Mark my words.Khan is going to be the villain for the sequel.But the story will be after the Space Seed episode,where Khan tries to steal Kirk's ship.The revenge story will be played in another sequel.Actually NuTrek2 will be partly like ST5 where the Enterprise was taken by Spock's brother.
But this time it is Khan who gets hold of the Enterprise and is taking it to some primitive planet,something like a new Eden or the new Vulcan Homeworld,in order to conquer it and Kirk is trying to stop him.

The difference is Bruce Campbell could actually do the job!
Besides, neither Campbell or Fillion would risk their TV careers on this. Eric Bana better hope his Elvis impression is better than his pseudoKhan.

If you've heard King Khan speak, you'd know his english is probably a fair bit better than ours ;)
......in other words, he speeky the english pretty damn good.
As much as i love Shah Rukh Khan's movies, I think a better choice for the Khan character would be Hrithik Roshan.. I think he'd nail it physically (he's got the body for it..no fake chest needed lol http://wallpapers.oneindia.in/d/190442-2/hrithik-roshan10.jpg) and he's a pretty decent actor, if you dig bollywood movies (which i do)

...where young Spock goes to Old Spock's quarters and says, "Ya ever fantasize about making out with yourself?"
Old Spock: No... <p>
Young Spock: Yeah, me either. That's weird. <p>
(long awkward silence) <p>
Young Spock: You know, if you gave me a handy, that's really no different than masturbation. <p>
Old Spock: WHAT?!! <p>

All you need is lots of Lens flares and to eject your Warp Core which is, ironically what you need to escape from falling into the Event Horizon in the first place.
IT doesn't have to be super-accurate to real world Physics, but for Christ;s sake, that's the most destructive object in the entire Universe (or Multiverse if you buy Jar Jar's alternate Timeline bullshit); how about showing it a little respect.
Even LIGHT cannot escape from the event horizon of a black hole.
LIGHT!
The fastest non-warp thing in the Universe cannot outrun Black-holes, but Jar Jar's Enterprise can.

.......catch up with a Ship moving at Warp speed (which is anywhere from 5-10 times the speed of light).
And as a bonus you get to beam him directly into the Ship's nonsensical plumbing system with pipes large enough to fit a human being and which just happen to be transparent for god knows what reason.
Also it's worth noting that unlike how we've built plumbing systems here on Earth for literally centuries, the Enterprise's ridiculous and ridiculously transparent plumbing system has not a single iota of valves, control valves or T-junctions, Y-junctions of any sort which one would assume would crush a small animal, much less a human being that's happened to be trapped inside it.
But enough about their plumbing system.
Back to their amazing Mega-Super-duper-califragilistic Transporter that can track a ship moving at warp speed accurately enough to land a person from a stationary planet on it.
You would think with technology like that, why bother with ships at all?

....with a substance that can generate black holes, instead of placing said substance in the planets upper Atmosphere where it will suck the planet's entire Atmosphere a few hours, if not minutes, thus removing it's protective layer from dangerous Electromagnetic radiation from it's Sun, and causing Environmental and Climatic disasters at a Global scale, along the way, you instead nonsensically try to drill into the planet's core which takes longer making it easier for you to be stopped and is a much more difficult process even for a 23rd Century mining ship.
It would be like the US deciding that in order for the Atomic bombs to be most effective they should land crack Marine teams with miners on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to drill several Kilometers into the ground and detonate the bombs from deep inside the earth.
Forget how long it would take to do it this way or how much harder it would be than just detonating them slightly above the ground where they are most effective.
As long as it sets up an action set-piece where the heroes try to stop them from several miles in the air (And fail) then it's all okay.

....when you have in your possession a substance that can magically create Black Holes (don't ask), as well as.....wait for it ...wait for it.........the ability to travel back into the past, rather than useing these two power-balance shifting amazing abilities to make your people (or what's left of them) rulers of the entire universe, you instead travel back to the past (where you over-shoot your intended landing time zone by over 25 years) and seek petty revenge against the guy who actually tried to save your planet.
Forget traveling to them ore recent past and warning your people to evacuate your doomed planet (While gifting them with his magical mega-super-duper-califragilistic substance you happen to have in your possession, that can create the most destructive object in any known Universe or alternate timeline, and making them the de facto rulers of everything they shall ever set their eyes on).
Nope; petty revenge sounds like a much better plan.
Genius.

...you, as the Captain of said ship, foolishly and dimwittedly sacrifice yourself and inexplicably go to the enemy's ship to try and negotiate a truce (????????), not only potentially giving them a hostage, but also leaving your own ship in disarray and chaos rather than helping in the evacuation effort.
Where's a Super-duper-mega-califragilistic transwarp transporter to beam you out of the enemy's into another ship('s plumbing ducts) that's moving at light speed when you need one?

....you jam it with Red- Matter and create Galaxy-sized black holes and plot-holes complete with plot contrivances and logical cock-ups and conveniences, all large enough for you to fly your star-ship through them but still escape it's event horizon by ejecting your warp core to enable you to escape from it at Warp speed minus a warp core.
Somehow.

Why?
He's just as ridiculous as the original.
He did what no other director could do, which is bring balance to the Force.....er.... I mean..... unite the lazy writing of the Star Wars prequels with even more lazy writing in Star Trek.
For that reason alone, he deserves to share a name with the most infamous Star Wars character of all time - the symbol of the fact that George Lucas had really finally lost the plot.
Jar Jar Abrams created a master-piece that only an uber-genius like George Lucas could possibly love.

All the arguments I've seen regarding "Plot holes" in Star Trek have been just as "Contrived" as the plot twists in Star Trek supposedly were as argued by the critics on this site. Still haven't heard a single one that made me stop and think, they've all been argued, and they've all failed. My favorite is the "They didn't develop Nero enough" argument. They established his origin, his motive and his plan, what the fuck else do you need, a flashback scene with his dead wife where he says "I hate sand, it's rough and corse, and it gets everywhere!" Fuck off haters, take your BS arguments with you!!!

Did you for a moment stop to consider that to actually GET to Warp speed (or stay there even for the briefest of seconds) you actually need a fully functioning and fully attached WARP CORE?
In the other Star Trek TV series (I don't know if they ever ejected the core in any of the previous movies), whenever the Enterprise (or Voyager) whenever they ejected the core they ALWAYS, ALWAYS did this while the ship was either stationary or at Impulse speed - Meaning : WHILE NOT AT WARP SPEED and WHILE THE WARP CORE WAS NOT ENGAGED.
The reasoning for this is simple.
In order to get to Warp speed and stay there, a ship (through the Warp Core) has to create a WARP FIELD, in which it actually travels while in WARP speed. Think of it as a 'wake' - like the one you see when a supersonic jet or a bullet travels at Supersonic speed, or the sort created when a boat travels on water).
When this field is collapsed, the Ship is either destroyed, or falls back into normal space.
Guess what happens to your WARP FIELD when you eject your WARP CORE?
a) You can't get to WARP SPEED (because, obviously you can't generate a WARP FIELD).
and
b) If you somehow managed to time your jump for just before you got caught in the Event Horizon and were already in WARP space your field collapses and you fall back into normal space and right back in that BLACK HOLE's gravity well.
BLACK HOLES have very very deep gravity wells.
So you would have to have gotten very very very far away not to get trapped again, and that was NOT what was shown in the movie where they went through all the Visual effects trouble of CGI-ing what looked to be a visual representation of some sort of Event horizon or a barrier of some sort.
And in their case anyway, they did not have the sort of shields that later versions of Star Trek had so the more likely scenario is they would drop out and be instantly destroyed either by the gravitational waves or their own inertia.
You have to understand a little bit about how the WARP drive in Star Trek theoretically works to realize just how stupid what Jar Jar Abram and his nipplehead writer's wrote in that scene was. YOu obviously don't.
And for the record, WARP drive is based on very real world Physics and real world understanding of how our Universe works.
It is theoretically possible to bend or fold space and and if you betn it enough you could create a field that would enable faster than light travel.
WE just don't have the energy capacity at our current level of technology to achieve this right now and the only things that currently actually observably bend space at the moment are very large stars and black holes.
Google "Alcubierre Drive" for more information on how this actually works
In fact, you know what, here I'll do the reasearch for you:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
This is REAL WORLD SCIENCE that even NASA is currently researching in conjunction with the JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California):-
www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm
As for your other point that this is a science fiction movie so none of this should matter, GOOD science fiction establishes it's own rules for it's non-real-world elements and sticks by those rules and stays consistent to them.
In fact any good fictional narrative establishes the rules by which its world exists and stays true to those rules for the benefit of the logical coherence of the story.
This is even more vitally important in the case of hard SCIENCE FICTION (like Star Trek, and even Avatar) which tell stories on worlds built onthe same scientific rules as our own and merely logically extrapolate those rules to allow them the fantastical elements of the story.
"Extrapolate" or "Bend", if you prefer:- NOT "BREAK".
You cna't have the speed of light as an immutable constant being important in one aspect of your story only to turn around and break that rule and deem it unimportant in barely the next scene.
That's sloppy writing.
That's what seperates this farce of a Star TRek movie with previous iterations of the franchise - including the very bad (story-wise) latter movies.
They stayed true to their scientifically established universe which was closely aligned with our own, and thus avoided the sort of embarrassing logic plotholes that we witnessed in Jar Jar Trek.
Stop making pathetic excuses for Jar Jar.
You come off looking as bad as them and evenworse because you embarrassingly actually tried to use mathematics to justify that shit.
Go buy (or borrow) "The Physics of Star Trek" by Quantum Physicist LAwarence KRauss and see just how much the Star TRek writers (the original ones who actually cared about this franchise) got most of their science CORRECT even while building this completely fictional world. Some of the science they actually postulated in the original series and next generation was actually prescient meaning that they only got the terminology wrong but were spot on on the physics of it as they were later proven right by scientific discoveries int he ral world.
(for example they first talked of a "dark star" as an sort of Anti-star, a couple of years before the concept of a BLACK HOLE - as the antithesis of a Star- was fully realized in the real world and for the longest time thought of to be one of Einstein's greatest mistakes. Well he was right (even against his own belief) and they were right)).
Come back and talk to me when you have more than a smidgen of understanding of Quantum mechanics or High school physics for that matter.
Otherwise spare me your poorly thought out and pathetic Jar Jar Apologia.
Even Jar Jar himself has admitted that it's a horribly written movie, so I don't know what they heck you're even defending him for.

What the fuck does Friction have to do with "Inertia"?
You think object in space don't experience inertia because they're in frictionless environments?
What the hell do you think they needed "Inertial Dampeners" in the later series of Star Trek for?
Fucking joke.
Do you even know what the formula for Inertia is?
How do you factor Friction into that?
Ever heard of Gravity-assist maneuver you moron? (also known as a gravitational slingshot maneuver)
It's an actual method used by NASA in orbital mechanics to accelerate or decelerate space probes and the like using a planet's gravity and heavily relying on relative inertia of the probe and the effects of orbital gravitational dynamics in the ABSENCE of FRICTION and frictional drag (which would be used in an Aero-braking maneuver and thus actually utilising friction).
And it's been used by NASA in virtually every single probe mission of probes sent on missions further than MArs or Venus Orbit. from the 1960's
You see, this is why people like you with a limited, laughable understanding of science should refrain from discussing science in public settings.
"Inertia" my ass.
Unbe-freaking-lievable.

im not a hater. I did nt hate JJs trek, but I cant say I was very impressed with it either. But ok, well to say there are no plot holes is a simply false statement. I have nt seen it in a while so Im just going to go with what pops into my head. How about the long period of time (a good number of years) between Kirk's birth, and when Nero escapes from the Klingon prison? Why the fuck did Nero and the Romulans hang around in a Klingon prison for years (where they were tortured and beaten etc..) while waiting for Spock Prime to arrive form the future? Not that it matters since that was nt explained much anyway.....
Or how about the question of why exactly a mining vessel would be equipped with Borg tech, and such a huge array of weaponary?
And what the huge coincidences?? The way Kirk just happens to land apprantly not far away from where Spock is on that ice planet? On an entire fucking planet, they run into each other sooo easily. And dont even get me started on the even bigger coincidence that Scotty just happens to be there too.

hoops to get Kirk in the Captains chair? Im sure there are others, but I could nt be bothered to go back and watch it to remember right now. It wasnt a terrible movie, and I really liked the cast (who carried the film on their backs imho), but it was nt that good for a Trek movie for me...

and make a contemporary movie about the current worldwide economical crisis.SCIFI is all about exploring and making commentaries and sometimes giving solutions on contemporary situations and problems that the world faces,either it is about politics,economics,societies,religion,etc or the human nature itself.
Scifi is not only pew pew and boom boom.Especially good scifi like Star Trek WAS.Star Trek is about telling good stories with a message,making a point,exploring philosophical,social,political and psychological subjects,touching themes which relate to problems and challenges in our modern world.
But from a television director and the writers of Xena/Hercules i dont expect to undestand what ST is about,what good scifi is about.In fact i dont expect thing from the younger,so called fans either.
FUCK THEM ALL.AND FUCK GOOGLE WHICH KILLED FIREFOX.FUCK YOU GOOGLE.

He's an american of indian descent, so no "weird" foreign accent for americans in the midwest to deal with. And the guy is very easy on the female audience's eyes, and lately due to his work in COVERT AFFAIRS, he's pretty fit. And as anybody who watched THE SEED episode knowns, Khan is quite the ladies man. And he's relatively well known due to his work in HEROES and COVERT AFFAIRS.
So, there you have it, you have your Khan. Easy, wasn't it?

as its been done already/it lacks originality/go with something totally new etc’..well then why bother having Kirk and Spock etc in the new films either? – dosnt that show a lack of originality? – the star trek universe is a big place, surely they couldve/shouldve gone with an all new crew on a new Enterprise….
Wrath Of Khan is the most popular, enduring ST movie of them all. the template that most of the other movies followed so itd make sense to capitalise on Trek 09s success with the most recognisable/popular villain for the sequel, done a new and different way - like TDK did with the joker after Batman Begins - ST09 was sort of taking its cue from the Batman reboot (set up with not so well known villain so no overshadow the main characters introduction - then hit everyone with the most well known for the sequel) so id expect them to follow doing similar stuff with the sequel
Also Khan hasn’t been exactly overused - 1 episode and 1 movie...
sounds lik eit might be Khan being the main villain discovered by another starfleet ship or a klingon ship - and set against a backdrop of a potential war between the federation and the klingons

Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof brain trust being behind the script for this. What r your thoughts on Khan being used again? Your thoughts on Benecio Del Toro playing him? And now that BDT is not playing him, who do you think could fill Montblan's rather sizable shoes?
For my money in a perfect world (that is Trek 12 was being written by a really good screenwriter) and if they had to do Khan (why not, The joker was done many times before Nolan took a stab at it, and that worked out pretty well) I would really want Javier Bardem to play Khan...Del Toro would have been my second choice....

Holy fucking mother of shit, yeah!
Orci gonna own your arse with Khan.
This better have William fucking Shatner as older Kirk having to finish Khan off in the epilogue!
Fuck yeah! He's gonna take his wrath out on Shatner Kirk, kill Spock, and Shatner gonna own some genetic Indian ass!
Thanks for bringing back Khan and the Shat Bob Orci!
Is it pronounced "or-kee" or "or-see"?
Can't wait for Shatner and Pine to scream "Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!"

The guy deserves a break and a nice paycheck, and has plenty of actual acting talent and screen charisma to do justice to a role such as Khan.
They'll probably skew young and hire fucking Kal Penn or someone though. KUMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!

ourdad, apparently JJ Abrams has had Chris Pine on a daily regime of going down into his sound proofed basement and yelling KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN at the top of his lungs, in preparation for his big moment.
SAG, i'm glad that you too can see the genius / insanity in the idea of casting Stallone as Khan.
All these sensible choices being made about this guy or that guy.
When it comes down to it Khan has to be a larger than life personality with larger than life pecs. Stallone is the man for the job.

"Kahn can't be female. ST2009 still follows the canon up until that point. It splits off when Nero comes through, but everything that happened before TOS and ST2009 (including Enterprise) is still canon."
We do not know that for sure. At first sight it might look like that, but stuff in the movie contradicts it. Like the product placement for Nokia and Budweisser. In the canon ST, there is no commercialism and capitalism in the future, and all brands of the past are history. So, it's hard to say, from the movie, what kind of paralel universe there is in the fucking movie. Is it a mirror universe or just a branching? Impossible to tell given the terrible way the movie was shat out of Abrams and Orci's asses.

So with all this Khan talk, I guess we're not going to a Star Trek movie in which the Enterprise at some weird planet with colourful sets, plants and alient, mini-skirted robot women and weird shit happening? Ah well, maybe one day we'll get an actual Star Trek movie...

... because he was once played by an american-mexican actor. And his defficient-brain mind, he can't conceive the notion that Khan is not a latino but an indian, and this is why he wants Khan in the next AbortionTrek movie, regardless of all sense and reason. And JarJar will not do anything against it because he doesn't give a fuck about Star Trek anyway, and he wil just shoot whatever the fuck Orci will regurgitate on the "script" without a care.

i mean stuff like in the early episodes of the original series (which bar the odd ep of TNG like WNOHGB, QWho, the spin offs largely ignored) - that quiet, eerie Twilight Zone vibe - the Ent alone charting a shadow haunted universe that hid some deeply strange things
the kind of supernatural awe and dread we'll hopefully see in Promethues
the previous movies havent really gone there either (except the failed ones - TMP and Trek V) instead focusing on action with a little side order of eeriness (ceti eels, genesis, whale probe, the nexus etc)

Given the Federation has already lost one planet, and nearly lost a second, not to mention a big chunk of its fleet, if they do trip over Khan, they'd make a proposition to him that he'd be in charge of military operations because they need the best they can muster against what are obviously nasty and very dangerour threats out there. It just might be the challenge Khan would relish.

JJ's Trek. He took the work of a genius, a man who was a visionary, and gave us a classic. Then he said he'll send people back in time, and erase the future. So basically he took everything Roddenbury created, and said it didn't happen. He should created his own work instead of destroying someone else's.

Both Kingsley and Andrews are of Indian descent. Their nationality is Indian. Just like African Americans, Italian Americans, Spainish Americans, etc.; Both Kingsley and Andrews are Indian Brits.
Again,you are throw this race crap around as a red herring. No one knows what race Khan was. It was believed that he was Sikh (because a drawing of him from the 20th century in Spade Seed had him in a turbin) which means he was probably from the Northern part of India and more Nordic. For all we know, Roddenberry wanted him to be from southern India which would have given him African ancestry.
I'm sorry if this touched a nerve and I am sorry you don't understand the definition of nationality, but back to my original point - Andrews is the right nationality. I let this argument go on too long.

hired for the sole purpose to make bucks for the studio.If you want to blame someone for what happened to our beloved property,that is PARAMOUNT and nobody else.
They hired JJ,they approved his changes,they gave him the budget to turn ST into SW.But then again it was the average movie-goer and the average trekkie who made his blasphemy into a BO hit.So the blame falls on their shoulders as well.

Yeah,i know they are going the Space Seed route for now,but i dont think that the nationality of the actor that plays Khan matters that much.
Hell,they can have Jackie Chan as Khan fighting Kirk with Kung Fu.Orci and Kurtz did that kind of absurdity in Hercules/Xena,i dont see why they should do it in ST.
After all the lowest common denominator aka retard will eat this shit like candy and then will announce JJ as the true savior of the ST property.God save us all...

Just because Ricardo Maltaban looked more like one race than the other doesn't mean that was the intention. We are talking about the 60s on TV. The actor pool to play an Indian character was really limited, hence that is why a Mexican played the character. So Roddenberry probably got the best actor he could no matter the race or nationality.
Even though Khan is depicted with a turbin, I don't even know if the intention was that he was Sikh. It was probably because that was the stereotypical image of an Indian national of wealth and power back in the 60s.

.. i woud also ask a 5-15 million dollars paycheck for a role in Abrams Trek Zwei. It makes sense, since Paramount is so obviously over-spending on this movies, so why not take advantage of that? And also as compensation from the embaracement that is to be in a dumb movie made by a guy (JarJar) who obviously doesn't have a clue what he's doing and endure that shit for two or three months. 5-15 millions would pay all that shit off quite nicely.

What i hate about AbramsTrek? Everything. the exception is just some of the actors in the movie, more because of how good they are as actors and their good screen presence. And that's all the good i have to say about that shitfiest. The rest is total shit.
Satisfied?

Yes, I figured it out. Star Trek 2 will be another time travel reboot story. Old Kirk goes back in time to fix all the mistakes of Star Trek, and he figures out the best way to make it all right is to work with Khan. He knows where Khan was found, so he goes back with a plan to recruit Khan and so to have Khan there when Vulcan is attacked. Everything changes, once again, Khan ends up president of the Federation. The end.

This is your favorite tasked portuguese friend speaking.
What i think of the reusing of Khan for the second abramsTRek movie? Well, it's deja vu, isn't it? They already used Khan before, in the first AbramsTrek movie. Only then they had the dignity to call him something else, even though an Horta could tell he was such a basic blunt obvious copy of the original. And now they are officially bringing Khan for the second movie. They must be feeling more confident this time, since they are shedding off all the pretense that remained.
Bringing back Khan is pretty lame. It's Abrams Team again going for the obvious. It truly proves, besides a shadow of a doubt, that money is the only concern with this fucks. Sure, all movies mad ein hoylwood are comemrcial in nature. But so often we see movies which are made with passion, in that besides the hopes for fat commercial sucess, movies ar emade because the people who make them believe in them, they are stories the filmmakers wanted to tell. Best of both worlds. None of this is visible in the Abrams Team Trek movies. And now they are being even more obvious. It's sad, actually. Star Trek is a business, but it should be a bit more thne just that, if you ask me. It deserves more then to be treated as just an easy cashcow by souless executives and uncaring filmmakers.
But that's me talking.

This movie is going to suck hairy monkey balls, just like the last one did.
I've got to believe Gene Roddenberry is rolling over in his grave. Every good thing he did in the older Star Trek iterations--use of real scientific theories (for the time), a realistic military structure for the Federation, and most importantly an innate hope for the future--was trashed for the sake of special affects and over the top action sequences. Jar Jar Abrams turned it into a B-grade Star Wars instead.
But Americans will eat it up anyway, because America is the land of the Dim-Witted now.

If one has to follow through with what happened in the lame reboot, and they were told they had to bring back Khan (like the Joker for Batman in every Batman series), I think the option is to change the outcome with his meeting with Kirk. Have him at first accept some role under Kirk, some task which he finds acceptable, prove himself a hero -- and use it to put himself into a powerful political position in the federation. Let him take over the federation from within at the end of the first movie with him. Have the second be an insurrection film against the Khan government. Make it somewhat like a quick B5. Let Kirk's first attack kill Khan's love. Eventually, Khan and Kirk have a fight to the death -- hand to hand combat. Kirk barely wins, but is arrested at the end. We are not told what will happen.
I'm not saying they should bring him back ( I don't think they should) but if they do, they should make it much more twisted than people expect.

because I correctly knew the movie would be crap is this: Instead of Starfleet attacking the unknown Romulan threat they decided to instead send a bunch of ships manned by cadets, not battle hardened officers, but cadets, who had not even graduated, and then let's put one of them in command of the flagship of the fleet which just happens to be sitting in drydock instead of being on a mission. Then, when all is said and done, after one mission, let's make him captain of the flagship permanently. Then there's the fact that people are competing for a chance to attend Starfleet Academy, and this guy joins up for ha has because he's asked to. For all these reasons this movie is total bullshit.

Since when ST:TMP is a failed movie? Only losers think like that. I'd expect we in our more enlighted days would finally be taken for grante what a good movie ST:TMP. You make it like we are still living in the fucking middle ages. Keep up.

The problem with Abrams on that one is that he tried so hard in aping the Spielberg 70's/80's style, that he brought nothing to the table. I still wonder what his "voice" is as a filmmaker other than lens flare. When you had someone like Brian DePalma borrowing heavily (ripping off???) Hitchcock he put his own spin on it and made it his own. The only thing I can think of as Abrams-esque at this point about Super 8 would just be bad over the top CGI in regards to the train crash (forget real world physics!!!) and the monster.

There's a good plausability to your notion of a Khan who could do his thing from the behind the curtins of Federation politics. I mean, Khan is supposed to be this super-smart, highly intleligent and educated super-man. And given what we learn of the Federation from the latest AbramsTrek, the thing is run by a bunch of childish idiots who mistake the federation for a high school and were so confused by the obvious cheating that NuKirk did on the kobiashi Maru test. So, the way i figure, Khan would need about one week to be the master and tyrant of all Federation. Easy pickings!

Likes to promote heroes into authority positions. So all Khan has to do is stage a big victory. And then run for president.
Of course, I don't think Khan should be done, but if he is done, this I think is the best way to do it. Really. It would be a combination of the best bits of the Star Wars prequels (just don't make it boring) combined with Babylon 5.
The problem is it's too good an idea for JJ Trek.

ST:TMP brough more of box office results then AbramsTrek, adjusted to inflaction. In fact, of all the TOS movies, only ST5 was the one that brough less compared to budget, and only by a small fraction. And that's merely from the home box office numbers (it's hard to find foreign box office numbers for ST5).
ST:TMP was actually a smashing sucess, and convinced the Paramount moneymen that there was money on ST, both in film and television. They just decided that, next time, make the movies for lesser money, to futher maximire profitability. Also, adjusted to inflaction, ST:TMP budget was about 40-50 million less then AbramsTrek. And they didn't need to go to a brewery to shoot the engine room scenes.

Why do you hate Spielberg so much? What did he do to you? Did he set your cat on fire and pissed on your cereals? Only somebody with utter hate of Spielberg would mistake Super 8 for a good Spielberg movie. What in your post i didn't understood?

It just didn't feel like Star Trek. Instead of tackling Big Sci-Fi Ideas it was more interested in cheap action bits and talk of "destiny". Plus sloppy writing and horrible science. Possibly the part that annoys me the most, though, is how eager they were to get Kirk in the captain's chair. In the original series he's a military man that's worked his way up to the point where he was given his own ship. He earned it and it shows in his bearing and the respect the others have for him. In JJ's version he's just a kid who through awkward plot contrivances found himself captaining a starship because it is his "destiny". That just really, really bugs me -- not the screwy science but the fucking with the basic character of Kirk. They did a pretty decent job with Spock, all in all, but they bungled Kirk pretty damned good. I'm sincerely hoping they fix this in Trek 2. I like JJ and I have faith in him to deliver a fun, tense movie, but I'm not sure if he can make a Star Trek movie that actually feels like Trek.

If it was directed by Spielberg I think we'd all be saying, "Hey Spielberg has returned to form." Now granted Super 8 has the same stupid leaps of logic that seem to run wild in todays cinema (and even the current cinema of Spielberg), but Abrams directing it just somehow brings it down a notch because it's a total aping. Like I stated above, when others borrow another directors style they usually try to put their own spin on it (De Palma, Tarantino, etc.). With Abrams it's like he got so wrapped up in making a Spielberg film, that he didn't put anything else further into it. I'll admit though that to me Super 8 is better than preaty much any film Spielberg has made in the past decade with the exceptions of Minority Report and Catch Me if You Can.

I'm way more critical of the way they handled Spock in AbramsTRek then you. They made Spock to be an emo mommy boy. That rub me the wrong way. The choice of actor, for me, was quite good. But they fucked up the character in the writing and direction. Maybe your positive reaction to EmoSpock is more to do how well Quito played the part then the part itself, perhaps.

when i fist saw it i was not very impressed with it. I actually like the directors cut which imho is far superior. Tightens up the pacing, adds more character stuff etc...fixes a lot of the issue many have with it.
I dont mind it being slower, but the long reaction shots do get comical after a while in the original version. But Wise's directors cut is very good as far as Im concerned.
And while i like and appreciate it, I also See TMP as being somewhat of an odditiy, as just like JJ's trek which is trying too hard to be Star Wars (now please be aware I am not comparing the 2 in terms of quaility, I prefer TMP over JJs trek) TMP was trying too hard to be 2001:a space odessy. And trek was not 2001 any more than it is Star Wars.
For my money....Nicolas Meyer is the one that got it right. WOK and TUC are the two best films that best capture the TOS show

Quinto did a great job as Spock, but no one can really do Spock "right" except for Nimoy. He justs brings that certain gravity to the role that no one else can match. Part of this is age, of course, and it does annoy me that they're trying to youthenize ST so much -- Kirk and Spock felt real in part because they were adults and had real life experience -- but at least half of it is just Nimoy Is Awesome. Shatner is pretty awesome too, if in a different way. He's one of those actors, like Bruce Campbell -- I know that's a weird comparison, but stick with me -- that's just fun to watch act. Not always 100% convincing, but a pleasure to watch do his thing. A ham, maybe that's the word. Nimoy is the opposite, but they work off each other wonderfully. Maybe that's the magic. NewKirk is just an annoying kid who should not be captaining a starship. I'm hoping the new movie takes place as many years after the first one as realistically possible and that NewKirk, or KidKirk, is aged up a bit and has a wealth of experience as captain behind him now.

while i understand your point, the thing is that with such a character like Khan, it would just be an oportunity too good not to pass of having and indroducing to international audiences a cool indian actor, if you know what i mean.

... i'm brunet with dark eyes, and a bit of skin tan paint and the right accept i could pass for a indian. in fact, i have quite a multicultural generic looks, i can pass from a dark irish to a jew or arab, it would all depend on the make up job. give me blue eyes and paint my hair blonde and i could pass for a englishman, due to my very pale skin tone.

You know who should play Khan? HARRY. That's how fucking stupid an idea it is. You dumbasses have no taste or sense at all. Instead of insisting that this movie actually try to TELL AN ORIGINAL STORY, you fucking drooling retards want endless rehashes of the same shit. "Hey, that's familiar!" Well fuck you. Go watch the original with a hat on, or upside-down. You all keep complaining that Hollywood sucks so much. Well why is that? Maybe because YOU ASSHOLES DEMAND MEDIOCRE REDUNDANT CRAP! You don't even deserve BAD Star Trek.
Asi, you keep right on dishing it out, my man. Someone needs to stoke the flames against that douchy, dick-nosed purveyor of mindless, derivative garbage and his slack-jawed sycophantic, imbecilic monkey boys.
Sure, call me a hater. I hate it because it's garbage. Because so far I've seen no indication that these motherfuckers are actually trying. Because most of the rest of their body of work gives me no confidence. Because I grew up with Star Trek and it pisses me off and saddens me to see it turned from mostly thought-provoking, intelligent and fun to mostly recycled, flashy unimaginative bullshit. This is not how I want Trek to be for the next umpteen years. It's supposed to inspire us, make us wonder. The only thing I'm wondering now is how long we have to put up with this fucking moron at the wheel. My god, I'm actually pining for the days of goddamn Berman.
And what the hell happened to YOU? You used to be cool, man, used to be discerning and have some taste. Has the post-modern, ironic hipster twat fad addled all your minds? Do you not even know if you're being sarcastic anymore? Not everything has to be, or should be, tongue-in-cheek. Honesty and seriousness are permitted.
Stop praising and rewarding mediocrity. Demand better for your buck. Fuck Hollywood and their lowest-common-denominator shit mill.
*No offense intended to the idiot cunts who also hate everything they've heard about this fucking movie. ;)

"only ST5 was the one that brough less compared to budget, and only by a small fraction. And that's merely from the home box office numbers (it's hard to find foreign box office numbers for ST5). "
in 1989 Trek V had a budget of around 30m and brought in 52m domestic. overseas wont have been much as they never were/are for Trek so about 20m - in fact i remember reading somewhere Trek Vs overall gross was about 70m. the least by far of the other original crew films but still not a flop
the only Trek film to lose money domestically was Nemesis which had a budget of 60m but only did 43m domestic and 24m overseas

It actually make smore sense to close ST to 2001 then to SW.
I loved TMP the first time i saw it, on TV age 14-15 or so. Love at first sight.
And i think the differences between the former and the director's cut of TMP have been overblown. The movie is not that difference between the two versions. The supposed big differences betwen the two versions seme more like a marketing ploy from Paramount then what's actually in the movies, save the obvious shot of the V'Ger seen in all it's glory out of the cloud at the climax. Something which, for me, robs a bit the mystery of the V'Ger because one of the thing si always loved about it was the fact i never got a real full-eye of it, making it look even more gigantic.
Meyers made a great ST movie, but i don't think that is the end all of ST movies. WOK is one way to make a great ST movie. TMP is another. ST3 is another. There's more ways to make a great St story into a film, and the fact the geekry is so exclusive and obsessed with WOK alone actually upsets me quite a bit. It's not just chocolate that's good ice-cream, there's great other flavours as well.

No, i'm not wrong because i actually bothered to do the calculations. i got the figures, and i even adjusted them to inflaction and calculated the ratio between budget and box office returns. I post all that in a previous talkback a few months ago for everybody to read. And the end result was that, due to the massive costs of Abrams Trek, and it's average box office returns for a blockbuster standard, that movie came penultimum in the all ST TOS movie moneymakers list. Sorry.
The story of AbramsTrek being a supposedly big ass moneymaker is just obvious Bad Robot propaganda to justify their stay on the franchise.

Go to Box Office Mojo, when adjusted for inflation, Star Trek 2009 had the biggest gross of all the Trek films, this is not open to debate, it is a fucking fact.
Profitability? Different story.
But as far as taking in the most money at the box office, when adjusted for inflation, Trek 2009 is on top, with TMP coming in a close second.
This is not a statement on profitability or quality. You want to debate profits related to budget, blah blah blah, go ahead, it's a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE in regards to overall box office gross.
Enough already with this pointless debate. Stop trying to spin facts to support arguments. Were talking BOX OFFICE GROSSES here, NOT profits.
Rant over, and that's all I am going to say in this TB because I have had it with this stupid pointless debate that has been going on for two fucking years. Talk about something else already for fuck's sake.

I think that they really should get an indian actor to play Khan. And not out of some politically correct attitude, but just because it would be an oportunity for some good cool actor to evidenciate in a blockbuster. I mean, take Jason Isaacs. He became known by the general public tue to turn as the evil villain in Roland Emmerich's utterly detestable THE PATRIOT. And from encefoward, he became a much sought after actor gracing the screeens, for our pleasure. Same thing could happen for a cool indian actor with this shit-to-be movie, if you get my meaning.
If Khan was a Sikh, as it seems to imply by his own name (Singh is a very popular name among sikh males, it means "lion", thus, a badass warrior name), then it would be plausible for him to be a light skinned indian, given that the sikhs are from the Punjab region, mostly populated by people of the mughal and persian etnicity. Sikh itself is not an etnicity but a religion, a philosophy, an ethos and a culture, a badass warrior culture. Come to think of it, they are quite a lot like the klingons, but with better fashion sense and hotter women.

... both of them basically representing TPTB's attempts to do Khan-like villains, now for an encore they just go ahead and bring back Khan and we're supposed to get excited?
And why does Star Trek need back-to-back-to-back supervillains?

I've nothing against Del Toro overall, but for him to turn down a role in a movie like this over money is ridiculous. This is a big tentpole feature - probably one of Paramount's biggest for 2013. How much could he be worth as an actor, anyway? He's known mostly for independent fare and, to my knowledge, the last studio film he did was Joe Johnston's THE WOLFMAN, which had terrible problems in development and pre-production before it ultimately underwhelmed at the box-office. About the most notable thing I can think of Del Toro having done was TRAFFIC back in the late nineties, but in general, his acting seems TOO understated - besides the fact that his English is... odd at times.
As for Khan, I'm going to be very disappointed if they use him. I don't care how many actors can or cannot pull it off, Khan was always based on what I call the Ahab archetype (which I'm sure existed long before Herman Melville's novel) and has gained such notoriety and popularity that he's really become an archetype unto himself. He belongs in the ORIGINAL Star Trek rhealm, not the new one.
Anyhow, I'm fine with them sticking to the established alien races and such - Klingons, Romulans, even Cardassians (bringing them in earlier in the timeline), but if they go with a specific villain such as Khan - or any real familiar, specific villain from past Trek lore - they're undermining not only the virtues of the 2009 film but the very approach they took to begin with in resetting the timeline. This needs to be Kirk, Spock and company as we've NEVER seen them, changed by the events in 2009 and on a familiar, yet still noticeably different trajectory. One thing I hope they do is tone down the Kirk-Spock friendship. I just don't buy that shared loss and a single mission together at the very end of the 2009 movie is going to suddenly endear these two guys to one another such as three seasons of adventures on television and a half-dozen more on the silver screen did in Roddenberry's original. This Kirk and Spock have distinct differences - Kirk seems a bit less formally-educated and as played by Quinto, Spock (forgive me) just seems like a stuck-up, intellectual bully. The so-called "dynamic duo" of this Trek franchise appears to be the Kirk-Bones friendship, which Chris Pine even said he hopes to be explored in an interview he gave on one of the DVD/Blu-Ray extras.

He abandoned them on a planet teeming with life. No way he could have known that something that fucked up could have happened in that solar system. Khan should have been angry at himself. He did it to himself. Arrogant neo nazi prick basically.
Can't believe I just defended an imaginary pussy hunting starship captain--but there you have it.

Benicio Del Toro is gone. Thank goodness. I don't really care much whether he was playing Khan or not, I just find Benicio Del Toro soooo overated. And have never understood the fuss about the guy.
I don't even think he can act well, and yet he somehow ended up being up for an oscar. Ugh! Baffling..
Personally I think they should ditch Khan, and make their own iconic villain. And get somebody who can really eat the scenery. Like James Woods or somebody intense like that. That would be better, I think.

Give us something fucking original! It's about to be 2012!
Fuck Zod - We want Braniac or Darkseid
Fuck Khan - We want someone else! Give us an epic battle with Klingons! SOMETHING DIFFERENT FFS!
Sick of these fucking 80s retreads. I am looking at you Bryan Singer!

Okay, first of all, the heavy weaponry on the Romulan ship makes perfect sense. It's a mining vessel in the future where other ships are going to have extremely powerful weaponry. It is safe to assume a mining vessel way out in the middle of space would need to have protection against the advanced ships of it's
time for protection.
Second, the Romulans did NOT hang out in a Klingon prison for 20 years, that was an extra scene on the Blu Ray DVD which was cut out. So therefore, that never happened. Nero's hatred for Spock kept the ship waiting while he planned his revenge. Pretty simple to me.
I also feel the "coincidences" are only thus because the viewers know the characters already. Who's to say this isn't how the crew actually formed? It's like in the "Colors Trilogy, Blue, White and Red" when everyone in all three films ends up on the same boat at the end, did the critics rip on it for such a "Coincidence?" Nope. Who's to say how this group made it together? The enterprise needed to come together, and this is how it happened. Just because we know the characters already doesn't make it a coincidence, it's perfectly logical for anyone who would NOT know the characters think that these random people would meet in this way is perfectly logical. It's not a coincidence because we already know who will come together. The alternate dimension storyline is supported by a scientific theory that in an alternate dimension or reality, the same things would in fact draw to each other. It's funny how so many critics hated this film because it wasn't science enough, but when they base a part of the story on a scientific theory, the critics respond with "That's just BS scientific jargon!"
The "coincidence" on the planet where Kirk lands near Spock isn't that far fetched. It is logical Spock would be nearing the Federation base after being stranded on Delta Vega by Nero, meanwhile Spock present would've shot Kirk near the same base so he could be rescued by Federation officers coming from that same base. Kirk running into Spock IS a coincidence, but a coincidence which could easily have been fixed had the writers simply had Kirk heading towards a beacon turned on by Spock Prime before being attacked by the creatures, forcing him to run in that direction. So in the case of a "could have been explained easily" plot point, I'll let that one coincidence go. If it ruins the whole movie for you, then I'm sorry, because that movie was a good one.

Or used to watch it before it started sucking ass? If Kahn HAD to be recast, which shouldn't be happening, I'd check out the chops on that guy who played the corrupt mayor of Tijuana that Nancy was banging. . . .

is this outtake from Shit Trek...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2NTsD1IFyA
I mean, you've got the stock nasty uncle character done to death in numerous previous films and shows. (Uncle Owen, anyone?) Jimmy Kirk with a Luke Skywalker-esque 'I'm looking at the horizon' twinkle in his eye (for anyone who doubts that Abrams is a Star Wars hack with no feel for Star Trek). And of course groan-worthy dialog...
KIRK
(plaintively)
Please stay.
...straight out of a Lifetime movie.
The whole setup reeks of the brief scenes in the Transformers movies in which Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox have a pseudo-genuine moment (example: 'I think there's a lot more than meets the eye with you') and thus display the talents of the 'writers' for 'character development' in terms so superficial and amateur they belong in a high school play. As always with Orci and Kurtzman, the 'drama' has to be punctuated at all times with ultimatums, usually several per scene (Uncle: 'Go.' Older Kirk brother: 'I'll see ya.'), which they no doubt pat themselves on the back for because it's so punchy even though it reeks of excess testosterone and is, besides being unbearable to watch, completely fake in terms of how normal human beings interact.
And who asked for Kirk as a kid, anyway? The whole idea is ill-conceived to begin with. It's the same mistake George Lucas made in giving us Darth Vader as a child. Good writers know how to establish character motivation and background without gratuitous kiddie flashback scenes.
Then there's the 'acting,' which is so transparently bad the less said about it the better.
What else? The jarringly fake lens filter effect in the scene's opening shot. A subtitle so you know it's 'Iowa.' And an Iowa strangely bereft of corn.
The Kirk kids dressed in clothes from the discount rack at the Gap.
That this crappy scene has nothing to do with and doesn't belong in the world of Star Trek goes without saying. But putting that aside, it is eye-rollingly bad on its own terms. Just thinking about the kind of minds that would conceive of and execute a scene so horrible hurts my brain.

You just proved your own "Ineptitude." That scene wasn't even in Star Trek you fucking moron, it was a scene which was cut because it wasn't needed. You just disproved your own argument, because even Abrams and Orci felt it didn't belong in the film!!! Way to go pal!!!

actually its more like 6 movies in a row as Insurrections bad dude was Khan like as was the Borg Queen (FC was pretty much TNGs WOK complete with Moby Dick quotes and a villain returning from the tv show wanting revenge), Soran was khan like in terms of being a sympathtic villain after a superweapon and Chang was abit the way of Khan too
i dont think you could class Sybok as Khan like nor the whale probe but Kruge was certainly a klingon take on khan
so it could be argued that nearly every movie since TWOK has had a khan like villain

crappy scene is emblematic of the whole movie, which is filled with the same amateur-hour theatrics.
But look who I'm talking to. A person who just said the ridiculous coincidence of nuKirk landing near Spock 'isn't that far fetched.' Ah.

I don't go down that easy, pal.
If those drands are in ST5, then the movie didn't do it's research. Meaning, they made a mistake, they didn't noticed, they went for cheap product placement, THEY GOOFED UP!!
GOOFED!!!!

... then that's even worse. Fuck this movie.
This reference will probably only make sense to a few of you, but I feel about Khan in Star Trek XII the same way I feel about the prospect of seeing the Kurgan in the Highlander remake... I get why it's being done, but I don't have any interest in seeing it -- just like Kane and the Guardian were Kurgan clones of a sort, Nemesis was already pretty much a scene-for-scene remake of Star Trek II with a Khan-like villain... and that's only two movies ago. There were shades of Khan in Nero as well. Now for an encore, let's just actually go ahead and bring in Khan himself? Is there truly no original ideas on where to take this "new" Star Trek universe? And I'll ask again: why do back-to-back-to-back Star Trek movies need supervillains, anyway?
I've always felt the Abrams' Star Trek movie was fine as a one-off thing, not "the new direction and starting point for all new Star Trek product" -- because it's a limited gimmick of a concept. The "fun" of Abrams Trek was, "Let's see how Kirk meets Spock and becomes the Captain of the Enterprise in a new universe with altered history and all the rules are off!" (which in itself seems a little dodgy to me... if we're to believe Kirk and Spock are so important to the franchise that we absolutely have to return to them in order to go "forward" with any Star Trek again, why begin by drastically altering their characters and histories to make them very different people?). It works as such, a fun little "what if" thing that happens in a vaccuum somewhere that we can watch and enjoy compartmentalized as such... but where can they really go from there that's compelling? "Edgy" reduxes/reimaginings of old Star Trek episodes and movies? "Missing" stories? Eh, maybe continue to explore Spock and Uhura's relationship? It seems as much creatively vapid as it does the antithesis of what Trek is supposed to be about.
I mean, we all enjoy Mirror Universe episodes when they come out but you never hear anybody clamoring for an ongoing series of Mirror Universe episodes or movies.

across Iowa and it is literally filled with corn.
http://www.dailyyonder.com/files/imagecache/story_default/imagefield/cornp-production-and-ethano.jpg
Of course some of the corn would have to be mowed down so Starfleet can build a spaceship that weighs eighteen quadrillion tons and then miraculously get it into orbit.

what about the international figures? that's the whole result for the movie. why you americans are so obsessed with domestic figures? the whole totality of a movie's sucess came from the whole worldwide figures, domestic and international.
But the better number to determine a movies TRUE sucess is from the ratio between budget and box office (and by that i meanworldwide box office). As in, you divide the total box office by the budget. That's how you will know how profitable the movie really was. that's the true measure of comemrcial sucess. And that's why, so far, STII and STIV are still the most sucessful ST movies ever made. They were cheapper to produce and made a truckload of money.

Fuck's sakes, dude, control your panties! and jsut because "hypocrite" is your personal favoreite word doesn't mean you have to misuse it all the time. Do like me, misuse "actually", it's far more harmless.
There's more then goofing on brands as ST5's problems. But there's one thing that ST5 does well, and that, it still looks like Star Trek, instead of some bullshit Sw knock-off. It's not just the use of the brands in AbramsShitTrek that makes it a bad movie, it's ONE IN MANy! I'm actually very fucking forgiving in some one or two goofs and shit, but thrown in at a relentless pace as AbramsShitTrek did, that becames unforgivable.
Where the fuck is the hypocrisy in there?

Does anyone have any idea when they're actually going to do a new Star Trek TV show? (one NOT tied to the Abramsverse... fingers crossed)
I still like the idea of a show revolving around a 29th century starship that's part of the Starfleet temporal police we met briefly in Voyager and touched on more in Enterprise. The door would be open for all sorts of storylines: time traveling (one episode, for example: TROUBLE in the 23rd century! Some cunt named Nero is dicking with the timeline, so it's time to go and collapse his own temporal vortex on him, the next episode it could be tracking down a temporal fugitive into the 24th, or 21st), normal exploration (a new method of space travel opens up whole new galaxies or something somesuch), and diplomacy.

he cant list any decent reasons for hating on JJtrek plus he got his Trek V box office figures totally wrong and then when i try to correct him he COMPLETLY misunderstands and goes off one about how TMP made more than JJtrek
LOL sorry dude - too many mistakes for me.
if i could set you on ignore id put you on it. but consider every post you make from now on unread.

Since you're IQ apparently plummeted overnight, I'll spell it out for you. Your hypocrisy is trashing ST2009 for product placement, and then excusing it in The Final Frontier (which is a far worse movie, btw).

And they posted the trailers for Spock and the 2009 Trek as if the 2009 Trek was the greatest thing ever. I remember watching both trailers back to back and thinking that the trailer for Search For Spock movi looked like it was for a real movie, and the trailer for the 2009 one looked like some new Star Trek amusement park ride a la Star Tours.

In Space Seed, Kirk didn't abandon them. Kirk was quite soft-handed in his punishment of Khan. for a guy who wanted to highjack and enslaved the Enterpeise so he could go on a conquering path of war and destruction to the rest of the Federation, Khan's exile (and it's an exile) is quite merciful. A far more humane destiny then Khan would had given to his conquered enemies. And remember, Khan himself was pleased, he felt it an oportunity to show his superiority by taming an unconquered world. Dude took it as a challenge. And there was a promise that the Federation would check on them.
Came WOK, and for some reason the movie doesn't bother to explain, the federation didn't kept it's promise of checking khan's colony. worst, the planet suffered an impossible planetary accident that hrew it out of it's usual orbit. and wheni say impossible, it's literally impossible for a planet to change orbit. why? it takes far less energy to smash a planet to tiny bits then it does to change an orbit. orbits can only change by either acceleration or decelleration, and to achieve that difference it would either need to add energy, or break the planet (which would also result in an emission of energy- think of car brakes heating up on braking), the palnet owuld melt before any noticable change of orbit would be noticed. And in WOK, we are talking major orbital hooping!
Actually, one thing that does rub me the wrong way in WOK is the excuse they found for why the planet Khan's colony was situated was fuced up. no ned for major planetary hooping, a major change of clima, like a fast surging ice age or a super-draugh set in a decade or two, would suffice. Earth had some of those in our past and without the need for change of orbits with Venus or Mars! It might look like nitpicking, but it does take me out of the movie a bit. Always did.

The Abramsprise must have been built with the anti-gravity thingies working full time, because a beast that large would sunk on the ground faster then an elephant on quicksands.
Another reason why the building of the Abramsprise on Earth as seen in the movie is so stupid.

i liked ST09 but that had me LOLing
i guess most trailers today are like trailers for amusement park rides. it seems to be the general consensus that everyone (esp kids) has lost their attention spans due to the instant access culture of the past 10 years or so - so every big movie has to be like a fast paced theme park ride with splosions and CG aplenty and the trailers reflect this
2012 felt like one of those Universal disaster rides on crack
i guess Star Trek also felt like an amusement park ride at times too
the days of big movies being filled with slow burning tension is a thing of the past (at least for now)

I know many in here see him just as an action guy, but he has been proving to be quite an acomplished actor who actually has a desire to prove himself as an actor. To be more then just a muscle boy. And he's charismatic like hell. Sure, he's a samoan or some other type of polinesian like, but it's not that hard to see him as an indian, as a sikh. Yeah, it would work! And realy, he's an impressive physical imposing figure. Imagine him next to Chris Pine. And Pine is no dwarf, he's quite a tall guy. But he would look miniscule compared to Dwayne Johnson, and that would be point, wouldn't it?
It's not hard to see Dwayne Johnson as some ubermensch. He would look the part.

And if the new NuTrek vilalin will also get to ride in a big ass badass gigantic ship that can cause TOTAL FUCKING DESTRUCTION not just on a whole Federation fleet but also on a planet as well, then it's official, this will be the 3rd time that ST movies rip off WOK. And in a row!!
It's just a bit too much, isn't it? I mean, time for a change of plot, maybe? Talk about thinking INSIDE the box! This is abusive. Leave WOK alone already!

Actually, ST5 did made money back. It was actually profitable, contrary to popular myth. But compared to STIV it was quite a big disapointment for Paramount. Paramount used that as an excuse to kill some careers from the ST franchise. Mostly because ST5 was a difficult movie to make, it was flooded with production problems, backstage politicking, the studio's insecurity about Shatner directing, and constant budget cuts. Basically, everybody rubbed everybody the wrong way, and sparks flew.
I wonder if St5 had the SFX with the same quality that ST4 had, if it would had been more well rceived? Sure, so much has to do with the more somber story and an atept tob ring a more heavy subjkect to Trek after the more lightweighted goofing around with the whales that the previous movie, but still, SFX do count some on a space adventure in the public's mind!

i'm not sure about vidocin, but sipping some tequilla, vodka, rum or irish whiskey while watching a movie, any movie, is the way to go. Cold beer works almost as well.
Maybe i have high tolerance for more slow paced movies, perhaps, which might explain my good opinion on the unjustly maligned STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. That and the fact the movie is damn good!

You are stretching in your excuses for AbramsTrek. Think like this: if you found some reasoning like that in defense of TERMINATOR SALVATION, would it make any sens eot you? Would it make the movier any better? It wouldn't, would it? Same thing for AbramsTrek.

maybe a million? half a million?
seems odd hed turn it down as hes never really been in a big budget hit movie (Wolfman didnt make its budget back and Trek 2 has a better than average chance of doing as well if not better than the first)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2NTsD1IFyA
Jewsus Holy Fuck!!! Is that scene stupid!!! And i though i knew all the stupid that existed in AbramsTrek! In a rare moment of lucidity, Abrams did well in cut it out. I would had walked out of the fucking theater right there and then! And that scene just perfectly exemplifies how misguided Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindenof really are about Star Trek. After a nice guy like George Kirk, Winona would marry a guy like that? Her standards would suddently drop that low? A girl that looks like Jennifer Morrison does? In fact, why the bloody hell Winona Kirk didn't married Captain Pike? He seems like the logical option after Kirk Senior, don't you think? Team Abrams don't even understand their own characters!
No, the dude is not the stock bad uncle, is the stock bad stepfather!! This is not Kirk, it's fucking Snow White! Snow White Kirk! Give me a break!!

Stop speculating, you know it to be true. Why go out on a limb and make something original when you can just repackage something already on the shelf?
<P>
JJ is a hack, and Bob Orci can't write. Now, feel free to lens flare away.

read my former post adressed to you again, please. you will notice that i said soething mor ethen just that for reasons why i dislike AbramsTrek. The product placement is ONE DROP among the sea of idiocity in the movie. By the way, two wrongs do not make a right. As i said befor,e in case you can't be arsed to check it out, i said the product placement in ST5 is not a good thing in the movie's favour. Got it? Pleas,e read it again. but first, take a minute and relax. you are very tense today.

Yeah, that shot of NuKirk looking at yet-to-build Abramsprise. Abrams just had to have that one shot. Abrams just had to have his hommage scene to Top Gun. Of all movies to be hommaged in a Star Trek movie, Top Gun! Tells it all about the mind of JJ Abrams, doesn't it?

... there is a movie that actually has one too and it predates AbramsTrek. It's a finnish Sf parody called STAR WRECK, which maybe you have heard about. It's part fan-fic/part legitimate theater released movie, and the image of a Enterpise-like Starship being build on a dock (i think it's actually the Voyager ship), is part of the parody thing in the movie. The villain-hero of the story then uses it to conquer the rest of the world, with a very funny shot of the ship hovering over the Statue Of Liberty.
In that movie, the scene of a starship being build in a earth dock is used for laughs. In AbramsTrek, i'm supposed to take that seriously, and fel,it like a very important movie full of pathos and stuff. Doesn't work! In fact, it's as funny as in the finnish comedy movie, if not more so because it actually wants to be taken seriously.

Actually, and if memory serves, Del Toro was the boss of THE WOLFMAN remake. It was his baby, and he shopped that movie around for a decade before it was made. It's quite common for movies who are made in which their boss or creator was the star.
This also means it probably was his idea to have Emily Blunt as the female lead in the movie. Smart boy!!

As often it's a question of money, there's also ego. Ego is as important for this actors/stars as is money. The umbrella excuse of "crative differences2 many times do mean shit like "the pay was not high enough" but it also means "you must be kidding me, you want me to say this shitty dialogue? i have standards, you know?".
You could ask, but then why did Eric Bana made AbramsTrek? Couldn't had just been mone,y could it? And the answer is that, yes, it would had just been money, dear boy. Anybody who saw Eric Bana's own directed movie LOVE THE BEAST, knows that the love of his life is a Ford Falcon he bought when he was 15, which he calls THE BEAST.
Bana is a fanatic about car racing and rallies, and he turned what was already a powerful muscle car (the Ford Falcon is Mad Max's car) into a 600 BHP beast of insanity! And then he used it to race the Tasmanian Targa Race. And he crashed, as you would. And he completly fucked up thre car.
Jeremy Clarckson of Top Gear called Bana insane for putting the power of a top Ferrari on a muscle car. He's right. Bana himself felt he went mad.
The car is so fucked up it might not be able to be repaired. Or if it can, it will cost a huge amount of money (materials, expertise, etc). This happened before his ST gig. So, yeah, Bana did the movie for the money, so he can have a chance to repair his love of his life, his adored Beast.
Also in the movie is a very candid moment of Bana preparing for a movie premiere with some movie he made with Drew Barrymore. And you can tell how unconfortable he is with it all. He even drinks a few brewskies before, he calls it "courage gravy". It's quite obvious he doesn't like much his involvement in obvious commercial blockbusters and the whole parade during the selling and release.
Bana being in such a tripe AbramsTrek movie is a paycheck he does for ulterior porposes. To have money so he can repair is favorite thing inthe world, and so he can then make smaller, cooler, better, more offbeat movies like HANNAH and whatnot.
And sometimes, an actor just tells the makers of such movies to fuck off. Sometimes, even money can't pay up the embaracement.

yes, actors care about $$ (I know a bunch). My point is, this whole 'BDT won't be in Shit Trek 2 over money' line is PR spin. Frankly, the whole Del Toro thing was about PR from the get go... Bad Robot using the casting as a publicity tool.
I doubt it was about money.
Also, I'm predisposed to think the project is terrible. Maybe it isn't. Maybe Del Toro just didn't want to do it because Star Trek is not (and has never been) perceived as A-list material. Plus, as we all know, every actor ever in ST will be hounded to his grave by fanboys eager to have him appear at conventions etc. A lot of actors are leery of the nerds.
Finally, maybe he didn't want to play an iconic character like Khan. (And it is Khan, by the way. This is well known in L.A. casting circles.)
Overall, smart move on BDT's part.

"Whether it's a goof in ST5 or not, it's not Abrams' goof. ST5 opened the door for product placement"
Nonsense! As i said before, TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. Also, the product placement existed IN ONE MOVIE! It was not an running thing in all of ST. It was the bad call of a movie that was running low on budget cash. An isolated event in a movie that is the laughing stock of Star Trek.
And if that was a case of Abrams following a lead, that makes him even more stupid then i initially though he was. At least i could give him points for originality, for the stupid idea of shoving product placement in Trek. If he was just follwing the bad precedent of a bad call from the past, it makes him just an even bigger idiot. Stupid is as stupid does, and Abrams made stupid by following th example of a stupid thing done before. Way to defend Abrams, pal!
If the use of Nokia in his ShitTrek movie is his atempt at subdue, then he's even more untalent then i first though he is. Every of your atempts to cover his as just make him look even worst.
In my words...
GOOFED!!!!!!

... of course the moeny that have come from them is very useful to Depp. However, notice that those are Depp's only cashcow. The rest of his career is mostly in low budget offbeat stuff. There is an ocasional movie like that one with Angelina Jolie i couldn't be arsed to watch, but those are the exceptions. His bread and butter is the more off-beat stuff. He's the complete reverse image of Tom Cruise, who's mister blockbuster franchise boy, and only very rarely he does a more offbeat movie.
If you want a poster boy for the actor to whom money is all there is, Tom Cruise is your boy, not Johnny Depp.
Also, Depp has always said he loves playing Jack Sparrow. He actually enjoys the experienc ein making those Pirates movies. The due gots payed and he actually enjoys making those movies and playing the character. Seems more then just a "money dear boy" deal to me, if you ask me. Getting payed riches for making stuff you love, sounds like living the dream. Can you blame him for it? I sure can't.

LOL thats got to be a factor for some actors 'theyve offered me star trek...moneys not too bad but those damn fanboys will hound me to my grave...fuck it no!'
imagine Sean Connery being accosted by fanboys for playing Sybok. hed have about 10 life sentences by now.

actor want to get rich, likee verybody else. if do so because they are doing what they lov,e that's living the dream.
actros aslo love to work on projects with merit, stuff they feel proud in participating, stuff they believe. how often an established actor makes a movie for peanuts, way below their price tag, just for the fun of making a movie they really like and believe? too many examples to count.
In the past i have been very critical of Chris Pine in AbramsTrek. In the William Shatner documentary THE CAPTAINS, i got the oportunity to see a different side of him. In the interview, when Pine is asked why he became an actor, he talks about theater, which is his first passion. and you should see him all lighted up whenhe talks about acting in theater. He just beams, his eyes betraying the profound love he has for the craft of acting, and specially to act on stage. That is his love. AbramsTrek are paychecks. Sure, you get ot play an iconic character (or so it was before it was raped by Orci/Aberams/Kurtzman/Lindenof), but the money brings oportunities. He's a young man, he's collecting paychecks for a rainy day, for when something better but pays less will came about and rekindles the pasionhe has for the craft. AbramsTrek certaily isn't that.
Actors work for pay... and for pleasure. They love acting.

Three films that I'm guessing Cruise didn't do for the cash, especially Eyes since it ended up taking about 3 years to make and kept him from making any other films during that timeframe. Granted Cruise usually does big budget films, but so does Depp.

"think that Nokia right now is not doing financially very well"
Well, in here it's everywhere. If i throw a rock to the air, i'll hit somebody with a nokia for sure garantee.
maybe the finns don't like greece!

"its funny isnt it - to actors its just a gig but to people like us its our lives!"
I love that you pointed out that dissonance. It's quite funny!
Well, that's what it takes to be a geek, isn't it? Just like something froma bad action movie of the 80s, THIS IS PERSONAL!!
Actually, some actors are also geeks and they take as much joy out of it as we do too.

However they attack a Space Seed reboot, it ends w/ Kirk/Pine dumping Khan on Ceti Alpha whatever. Thus setting up a potential real reboot of Wrath. Not saying it's smart, not saying it's good, but I can totally see the powers that be seeing Khan and the Wrath property as a no-brainer to make money.

No, in Star Trek future there ar eno brands anymore. there is no capitalism. there are no corporations, no advertizement, no brand products, none of that stuff. If you actually watch both TOS and TNG, eventually you will notice that Earth in the ST universe is a post-apocalypse world. After a WWIII that made the two previous World Wars look like a bar brawl, the entire human society was rebootted. and a new society emerged, free of the things that plagued it before. and one of them was corporate commerce and industry. No capitalism.
So, no, there are no brands in the future.
Beside,s think about it, and this goes tripe for TNG: with a replicator machine, what's the fucking use of a brand? if you chose orange juic,e you will get an orange juice right there. No need for fucking Fanta, would it?
In TOS there ar eno replicators, but it's quite obvious that if you go to a bar and order a drink, you are not paying for it. It's free of charge. yoru work for the federation as a starship crew member is the pay you give for society, and society pays you bad with a free drink of your favoerite poison at ther bar. Except romulan ale, that shit is illegal. But Bones can get it anyway.

I'm no Neu-Trek lover...it was entertaining, but not really Trek.
But one thing it did do right was showing that people are still people...drinking, fucking, etc..., that the spirit of individuality and the ability to be a fuck up still exists;..unlike what Roddenberry wanted and demanded in his later years..an antiseptic, sterile humanity cold and devoid of any sense of individual freedom of action.
I think in retrospect that the reason the Klingons became so damned popular during the run of The Next Generation...is because people could better relate to their characterization than they could that of the humans as depicted.
So although I want to see more thought, character development, and intelligence put into the next Trek...I'm all for keeping those things that connect that universe to our own. Bring on the Product placement..., I'll be the first to buy a 6 pack of Blue Moon that is actually Blue.

you say ST5 established that brands exist in the future. And the rest of ST tells otherwise. What will win? The one single goofy movie everybody pretends it doesn't exist? Or the whole rest of ST, from Enterprise to TOS to TNG to DS9 to Voyager? Balanced pretty tipped there, pal. A feather doesn't weight more then the ostrich.

I fully agree with you about Depp in PUBLIC ENEMIES. I love that kind of understated acting. Though to be fair, i have to say, my favorite actor in PE was Christian Bale. But i'm quite a fan of him since i first saw EMPIRE OF THE SUN back in the day. Anyway, PE is a damn fine movie, a bit underated, with fine performances all over the board.
But my favoreite acting moment in the movie is not form either of those two. It's in the final moment in the movie between Stephen Lang and Marion Cottilard. That scene kills me. I can't say which is best, Lang or Cottilard, but that scene has to be one of the best endings i have seen for quite a while. And all because of clever sparse dialouge and damn fine great acting from two great actors. Damn!

Becasue that was the running motif throughout the first movie. It's not even me saying, that cames right from Abrams mouth in the audio comentary.
I wonder how many tiems will NuKirk will be hanging for dear lif ein the next movie? Give the law of expantion in this holywood blockbusters, in which somethign that happend once in the first movie has to be more and bigger in the next, i wonder to what shits will NuKirk hang about for the next shit-movie-to-be.
Who wanna bet the climax of NuTrek will be NuKirk figthing NuKhan in some tall structure, in some cheap rip off from some Star Wars movie, and at some point NuKirk will fall and hangs from a great height, while some bad shit below, like, say, lava, boils below?

Or with better cameras, because I think the cheap digital camera look hurts the film and makes it look kind of well cheap which isn't the case since it cost upwards of 100 million to make. Don't get me wrong I like crazy kabuki performances from Depp (like Sweeny Todd for instance), but sometimes I get the feeling he just tries to be weird for weirds sake, even when the material may not demand it.

I'd hate the kind of claim and fame he got from AbramsTrek, when all of it sounded so retard and misguided. Receiving accolades for th wrong reason is not the type of shit i would wear proudly on my sleeve.
Your persistent defense of AbramsTrek is so-un-chopper like. You are losing your choppiness. You are chooping yourself! And for what? AbramsTrek??? I'm worried about you, friend! I'm dead worried!

People drinking and fucking has been a constant in Star Trek since TOS. Abrams didn't do anything new. all he did was made those Trek characters act like retard rich holywood teens assholes.
The anticeptic thing is overplayed inthe people's minds in regard to ST. Yeah,the ships were anticeptic, and they better be! Higene wa always a big thing in the navy, and for good reasons which should be quite obvious. What would you rather, a ship filled with filth? St is supposed to be a better future. Better future, better hygene, seems like a sure consequence.
Also, the hygenical anticeptic St seems more form the TNG series. TOS still looks a bit more used up future, despite the advancements. Maybe a consequence of the low budget for sets, perhaps. But if one disregard the obvious carboard sets, the TOS enterprise is actually a nice place ot be, if you cna't stand anticeptic enviroments.
Also, actually if you come to think of it, the bridge in AbramsTrek is the most anticeptic thing even in the histroy of ST. It looks like some herbal pharmacy with pretense to stylishness. With added lens flares to make it lok even more like a sterilization machine. Which clashes quite a lot withthe rest of the look of the movie, and not just with the world below on Earth but also with the rest of the the ship. Specially the brewery.

"Find the episode of Star Trek that says brands don't exist anymore"
Quite often in TOS and TNG. Even in the movie FIRST CONTACT makes allusions to that, given Picard is meeting 21th century people.
The future created for ST is one where there is no capitalism and no brands. That's the universe that ST is. Either you accept it or not. It doesn't have to make sense for what you know of our world because that is the world that was created for that show. It's a different world from our own. It's a different world with a different society with a difference economic system. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, it is as it is. Abrams just couldn't give a rat ass about it, or he was so desperate for added cash to his over-spending movie he just wiped his ass to what was established (as he would) and went with it anyway.
Two wrongs do not make a right,the product placement in ST5 and AbramsTrek is both wrong for the universe the movies are set in.
And your coment about no Pepsi in Superman II is reaching at strawns. C'mon, man! Really, you think Abrams Trek is so deserving of all your dedicated defense? You actually think that fucking movie is good?

Didn't knew that about Nokia. And to consider how important they are to finnish economy... which makes just makes their former coments about the bad economic situation of the southern european countries and how they were so hesitant to bail us out come to bite them in the ass, doesn't it?
This shit killed any sympathy i used to have about the germans. Any american who now mocks and pisses on the germans is welcomed by me. Piss away!

In the Original series at least some part of the galaxy was most definitely a market economy..as evidenced by people like Harry Mudd, and Cyrano Jones and references to Federation Credits.
It is only during the Next Generation and Trek IV, where Roddenberrys unrealistic Utopian views are given full consideration, that we stop hearing about credits...although the rest of the Galaxy...(Ferengi etc...) seem to still be at least marginally based on a market economy.
Seeing as how Neu-Trek takes place during the time of Federation Credits, and before full implementation of Genes Socialist Utopia...it is reasonable that we would see brands and products familiar to us all. Coca Cola has been around 100years, no reason why they wouldn't be here in the 22nd or 23rd Century as well.
And if they didn't...well I agree with Choppah...that'd fully suck

but rather the cold antiseptic nature of the society as depicted. It seems a joyless, lazy place where the safety net has taken away all the wonderful unpredictability of REALLY living.
I think that is why the Klingons, and characters like the "Q" are more popular that the human characters...they are flawed, dangerous, full of life...and ultimately less alien to us than are the humans depicted.

all survived WW2...there is no reason to believe that even after WW3 that people would not return to what they knew. If some guy can make a warp capable ship less than 10yrs after WW3, then certainly someone would start up the old Budweiser plant as well.
People are resilient creatures, as well as being creatures of habit.

actually, it has been consistent in shedding more and more any traces of currency based economy. what might had looked vestigial in TOs is absoltuly absent in TNG foward.
There is trade going on in Federation. But it's not capitalistic. It's not very well defined, but one thing they do define it: it's not capitalistic.
In fact, the ferengi are used as the foil of the federation higher values because they are so fucking super-capitalistic. the ferengi are the butt of joke in the ST universe due to their capitalistic obsessed culture.
"Roddenberrys unrealistic Utopian views "
Hard to say if so. Imagine yourself tryingto describe to an ancient roman a society without slavery. He would think you were mad and telling jopkes and describing an impossible utopia run by unicorn and fairies. Just because our world is so dependent on a capitalistic economy doesn't mean there is no other competent economic system. We are just stuck with this one until it runs it's course. As it happened in the past with other economic systems which have goen the way of the dodo, so will happen with out present. To what it will evolve to, nobody can say. But it will look strange and exotic, maybe even utopic to us today.
"Coca Cola has been around 100years, no reason why they wouldn't be here in the 22nd or 23rd Century as well."
Tell that to PanAm. It coudln't even reach 2001. And that's just not transportation. Take for example Morland Brewery (what's a talk about AbrasmTRek without mention of a brewery?). It used to be a big, founded in 1711. It lasted until 2000. That's 3 centuries. Lasted more then the entire life of the Coca-Cola Company. So, just because your favorite sof-drink outfit is still operational doesn't mean it will last eternal.
And as i said before, a point which seem it's constantly overlooked in the AbramsTrek defense party, the Earth in ST universe is a POST-APOCALYPTIC SOCIETY. Actual localized nuclear war happened. Society completly collapsed. Everything ended. It was all turned to rubbles. Things got so bad, the entire human society rebooted. Real Noha's Ark Flood type shit. And in the rubbles of the past, and the society's atempt to start again better and avoid repeatingthe mistakes of the pas,t and with a emphasis on scientific and cultural betterment, to reach the stars, and they would bother to rebuild the Coca-Cola just so they could have a bit of a sugary drink? Easier to squeeze an orange, mate!
The product placement in AbramsTrek is not some thoughout worldbuilding for the universe made for the movie. It was just Abrams getting more cash from shoving brands onscreen. Without a care if it fit to the story he was telling. Very much like what Micheal Bay did when he shoved brands in the middle of the clones colony in THE ISLAND, where it makes no sense whatsoever. Funny enough, Orci and Kurtzman were also involved with that piece of hsit movie. Product Placement in AbrasmTrek now looks less an accidental necessity.

Of course my arguments makes sense IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UNIVERSE CREATED FOR STAR TREK. That's the whole point! AbramsTrek, supposedly, is a movie which has it's paralel universe thing created by the branching that occured when Nero's Narada went time traveling and destroyed the ASS JJ Abrams Grandfather comanded by George Kirk.
As such, the Federation presented in Abrams Trek should look and be still quite a lot like the Federation of the original ST shows. THe destruction of one single starship wouldn't be enough to bring back dead brands form the pas,t would it? Abrams just didn't cared! That's it! There's no more profound though to that movie then just that.
It seems that you want the universe of the ST Federation to be some hybrid between the stuff you saw in Abrams' movie and what you think the world is today. The ST universe is as they created, to be a capitalism-less world. and more emphasis was given on it as the show went on. So, i'm sorry, my good friend, and it's you who ar enot makijng sense in your persistence in defending brands in the ST universe. Any geek should know that for a fact. It's the ST universe AS CREATED, and not as HOW YOU PREFER IT. Notice that in this duiscussion, i haven't even coment of what i think will be the economy of the future and what i think would be best. Because it doesn't matter waht i think of it. What matter sis what they made for the show. That's it.
You chopped yourself, friend.
As for Trek 09, as you call it:
I agree that generally speaking,the cast is pretty great. Most actors were very well chosen. I do have a issue with two of the actors, however: Zoe Saldana and Chris Pine. But from what i have seen them in interviews, maybe my problems is more to do with how godawful their characters were inthe film and the terrbe shit they had to say and do then with the actors' talent at acting. so i'm on hold on that.
Stylish design? Disagree. The movie is that i call prettified ugliness. It migth look good if you show off a lot of eprfume like michael by type cinematography, but i'm not that easily fooled. It's glittering, it's false pretty. It's nevue rich nonsense And there was nothing stylish about the fcuking brewery, i tell you that.
Wonderful sense of humor and adventure: Well, perhaps, if i suddently forgot everything that makes me enjoy movies and started seeing Michael Bay as the only way movies should be made. Because the humour was juveline, inapropriate and stupid (computer of the 22nd century can't understand a common russian accident? yeah, fucking right!! xenophobic humour is histerical!), and the action only had a false sense of pacing and adventure because it was edited inthat michael bay super-fast way so that the filmmakers can hide the fact they shot the entire movie wrong. Yeah, making movies exciting by constant close ups and super-fast editing. It's so easy, even Michael Bay can do it. Not impressed at all. Bascially, Abrams Trek is a Star Trek movie as directed by Michael Bay. That shit aint right!
AWFUL middle act that nearly obliterates the entire movie: No, it actually obliterated the movie. And it's not just the mdidle that's awfu, the begining and then ending are too. And the middle act is so awfull it's enough to kill ten movies. So naturally, the AICN geekry loved it.

but I will defend some of the choices made...not everything in it is bad Asi...sure the writing is bad, the plot pointless...it is NOT Trek.
But it isn't the 100% horrible mess you want it too be either..., there was some decent acting by guys like Urban and Pine given what they had to work with. The direction wasn't ALL bad...there were some good choices made that helped in connecting that universe to our own like the bar scene (although I still don't understand how you can go from bar fight to academy overnight).
I know you HATE Abrams trek Asi...but can't you release your anger and fine ONE thing about it you liked? Otherwise you are going to let this color your perception of the next film, as you will be predisposed to hating it and not letting it stand on it's own merits...and THAT is illogical.

It doesn't fucking matters what you or i think would happen if human society was rebuilt. All it matters is what amnd how the creators of ST created their own universe for the shows. You got it now? It doesn't matter at all what i want or prefered or liked, it's what they did for the show. You understand it? What's so hard to understand?

"but rather the cold antiseptic nature of the society as depicted. It seems a joyless, lazy place"
I can't infer that just by watching the interior of a spaceship in which efficiency is a top proiority, can I? If anything, from so many of the episodes shown, specially those when the characters take a break, there is a lot of stuff like tourism and gambling and chilling out at bars and guys meet girls and have sex all over the Federation. And it's all for free. The luxuries of 5 star hotels free of charge. If you ask me, that's the place to be.
And then you have to add to the fact that evertybody in ST's Federation are working on the job of their dreams. It's not the best job they got, it's their dream job. Suddently, the federation doesn't look that cold joyless place. If anything, it's impossibly cool.
Hell, they have poker nights at the enterprise, for Crom's sakes! And drinks that give you the pleasure of alchool without the bad side of hangovers! You heard that? And you call that a cold and bad place to live in? Hell no!!

I mean for fucks sake in Trek VI, The Undiscovered Country the following is said...
Kirk: What are we doing here?
Bones: Maybe they're throwing us a retirement party.
Scotty: That suits me! I just bought a boat
Now...how if this is a time when overabundance exists, and there is no exchange based economic system in place can good old Scotty BUY anything?
Also...Bones smuggled in Romulan Ale from a freighter captain through the neutral zone. If there was no economic gain to be had through such trade, economic sanctions such as this would have zero effect on the Romulan empire and would serve only to limit your own peoples standard of living...
No...the Romulan ale ban screams that there is indeed benefit to be had by the Romulans through trade with the people in the Federation, and that the Federation seeks to limit such trade as a way to isolate them economically.

debating the economic systems of a fucking make believe universe, and whether or not Brands would exist in the Trek verse...
I"m going home and fuck my wife, watch some porn, check on my stocks and try and wash the geek taste out of my mouth with strong drink...lmao

"American Budweiser originated in 1876, Levis in 1873. They've survived two world wars already."
Dude, are you serious, or are you just pullingmy leg? What part of TOTAL FUCKING GLOBAL DESTRUCTION BY NUCLEAR WAR AND COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF EVERYTHING IN CIVILIZATION you are not understanding? Bud and Levis never had to deal with a nuclear post-apocalypse, had they? And those brands existed in USA, where no bombing ever happened. VW, Siemens, Mitsubichi and Bayer nearly disapeared fromthe face of the earth because their instalatiosn were bombed the shit out by the allies, without the need for nuclears. It it wasn't for american fiancial help fromthe Marshall Plan, those firms wouldn't exist today. In fact, the whole Germany and Japan raised up because of american investment after the war. Even Britain need that, and it was an ally. If it weren't for the amerian investment form the Marshall Plan, i wouldn't be driving the car i have today, my VW Eos, because the firm that made it wouldn't exist anymore. Hell, the first car i owned was an honda Civic, which woudn't exist either if it eas not for the financial helpt hat Japan got form the USA after the war.
And that's stuff from countries which were conventially bombed out by convential weapons. Without the USA finacial investments, they would had never raised as they did. you want to know an example of a country that din't got that help and how it turned out? ALBANIA. Check it out. It's still suiffereing today from the econimic collapse caused by WWII because they didn't got bail out investments.
That's the result of conventional bombing, and it was apocalyptic. how worst it would be with a GLOBAL TOTAL FUCKIGN DESTRUCTION APOCALYPSE that would had affected the whole world equally? Everything back to the stone age!?! Real THE ROAD scenario. Levis and Bud? They would be history like the dodo.

I get it now. Well, you had your laughs already. It was funny. For a moment you guys convinced me you are actually serious about your arguments. I fell for the obvious joke. I was p'unked! Good job, fellas!

And the point is the FICTIONAL Star Trek universe contradicted itself long before Abrams came along. Conspiracy and Choppah and myself have illustrated this with irrefutable evidence.
ST5 introduced product placement. Brands exist in the Star Trek universe canon before Abrams.
Check and mate.

You will fuck your wife AND watch porno??
You know, this is how one is get caught in a lie. You are not married! C'mon, you is gonna believe you know?
If you are actually marrie,d you are either going the get a divorce, and she will own all your copies of your precious Michael Bay and Jar Jar Abrams blu-rays with her. Or she cheats you with the plumber... and the garbage man... and the paper boy... and your tax accountant!

Do you even know how chess works?
You made no big victory. And your AbramsTrek fucked up, regardless if you think otherwise. And the funny part is, that's a minor problemthe movie has compared to other, more pressing problems. Which just shows how deeply fucked up your AbramsTrek is.

i'm going to get me some Jameson whiskey glass and watch the 4th episode of "Forbrydelsen", the original danish "The Killing" TV show, from which the less good american remake was made from.
See ya tomorrrow.

Darling, what's that on your breath? -Conspiracy's wife
Uuh.. what do you mean babe? - Conspiracy
That smell. You've been talking geek again haven't you?
Uuh.. no babe. Course not.
Yes you have. You've been talking geek with those goddamn geeks online. HAVEN'T YOU?!
I.. uhh... babe.. I just got sucked in and before I knew it...
(sobbing) But you promised me. You promised me those days were over...Tell me, tell me what it was. TELL ME!
It.. it was STAR TREK. The fictional galactic economy and product placement within the Star Trek universe.
OH. MY. GOD. I'm leaving you and don't even ask for a farewell fuck.
No.. You can't.. You KHAAAAAAAAANNNN!! (what have I become?).

I mean didn't they have synthehol instead of real alcohol so people could not get drunk? Part of the reason for the Maquis uprising was people trying to get out from a fairly oppressive and intrusive Federation. Also it seems while their wasn't a currency people were alotted things like Transporter Credits, Replicator Credits, and Holosuite Credits. I think they were probably handed out evenly, meaning, Trek was a true Communist society. Oh Gene how subversive of you!

Now hold on there a second! I've been a big fan since 1966 and I know that there probably would be no brands in the 24th ( we all have replicators ) era but back in Kirk's time I've never heard that there are no brands or commerce.
I even remember a line from the the first season where Kirk is talking to a pilot ( Tommorrow is Yesterday " ). The pilot says the ship must have cost a lot and Kirk replies ( not correcting him and saying we have no money ) " There are only 12 like it in the fleet ".
I don't remember a single reference to the fact that there were no brands or commerce in that era. I can understand when you have replicator tech that would change things but they still seemed to be paying for their drinks at K-7.

with the revenge angle taken out of it. Guess they are just going to make him a master race cheerleader like he was in Space Seed. Yawn.
Having said that, I pick Aasif Mandvi. Don't laugh--because he will hurt you.

The man is a terrific, totally underrated actor, and while he is actually a Kiwi, he's played every ethnic role out there. He's also imposing enough to play a superhuman. Wow. Wish they'd consider him, but I know they'll probably go with a more recognizable actor.

That's so funny, and so true. Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams/Lidenof are not exactly nkow for writing smart characters, are they? So they will go for what they know best, they will go for shit blowing up instead, in lieu of smart characters out-thinking each other.

Not only is he a kiwi but a maori as well. but as you said, he has that multi-etnic look to him which, despite the wrong etnicity, he could play an indian without many bat an eyelid.
It's great to see such love for, in my opinion, such an underrated actor.
However, Eric Bana is also a damn fine actor, and Abrams and company made him look banal and uninteresting as that rent-a-Khan he played in AbrasmTrek Uno.

I would not complain if he was chosen as Khan... but can he let some left overs for the others to eat as well? i know he's gotta eat, but man, does he need to be in every movie made today? Let something for the others!

Both the cost of something and commerce doesn't necessarily means that money and capitalism (including brands) exists.
Money is so ingrated in people's minds that when we say something is costly, the imediate idea is of money and comemrce as we know it. The cost of something means the amount of materials and effort that went to make it. The cost in money reflects that, in a monetary society. In a non-monetary society, to say a ship would be very costly means there was a lot of material, many of them hard to find/exotic, and a lot of work spent to making it. That's a cost.
Commerce, as in trade, cna also happen without money. It's called direct trade, in which one article is directly traded by another. This type of trade was actually the one that existed for most of the history of mankind. money is a relatively recent thing, compared to the whole history of mankind. So, there is trade in the Federation, but it's of a non-monetary, non-profitable kind.
Many call this a communist/socialist type of economy. Actually socialist economy is one form of this type of non-profit economy. Money is not the only way economy can work, it's just the one we are so used to we take it for granted, and many have a hard time to conceive the notion of a different world, like in ST, where none such exists.
Roddenberry and his sucessors created a universe, the Star Trek universe, where there is no capitalism and no money and no brands. That's how we should take it. Just because some disagree with this type of economy or can't conceive the notion that such could exist is besides the point. St is deliberatly created not to be like our today's world. Something that Abrams and friends don't seem to be able to understand.

Playing with credit might not be the same as money. I know what you are thinking, that calling it credits is just a fancy way to give a different name to currency and avoid bringing dollars to the future. There is a good point to be made that in the TOS series they were still a bit uncertain how to depict the future's economy. But certainly right from the start the intention of the creators of ST was to create a universe where, at least the Federation, nobody was concerned and boggled down by economic considerations.
As for the brand thing, i dn't understand the persistence sen in here that brands has to exist in ST's future. Since it's quite clear that they have a non-capitalistic economy, that they are not a capitalistic society, thus without corporations and such, it's a matter of course that there would be no brands for such corporations like Budweisser and Nokia. No brands is just a natural logical conclusion from the absense of capitalism.
When i see many of people in here trying to find nooks and crooks trying to find excuses for why brands have to be (even going so far as using the ST movie they most dislike and otherwise pretend it doesn't exist, ST5), i'm reminded of those ambulance chasing lawyers, who find absurd loopholes in the law and clearly deturp the inteniton of the law to get their crook clients free. It's quite clear that when the ST creators invented ST and it's non-capitalist economy, the obvious implication is that everythign that is today's economy which would include such things as brands, would not exist. They clearly didn't felt the need to be so nitpicking as to specifically say that brands don't exist as well, because it's like, d'uuhhh!!!!

and what you said about ST:TMP and it's supposed bad reception by the public is very true. It's just today's dogma bullshit that proclaims the movie to have been a fiasco among audiences and box office, when it truth it was the very opposite.
You have been saying good shit in this talkbacks. I like you. Where have you been before? Are you new here? If so, welcome to this den of inequity.

Just stipulate that the history change meant that some ship other than the Enterprise found the Botany Bay. Without Kirk and Spock to foil him, Khan succeeds in commandeering a ship and conquering a planet. So now the Federation wants to undo the damage these rogue humans have done to the Prime Directive, but Khan is kind of a Putin-like figure who has the support of a lot of the population he conquered, and they help him fight. So it's kind of a "We will force the Prime Directive on you even if you don't want it!" kind of story. Dial it up with Khan being the super-genius Khan who took over the Enterprise in 10 minutes instead of the dumbass Khan who got lured into a nebula and blowed the hell up, and you've got a great politico/adventure/war story.

Remember an episode called The Trouble With Tribbles?
Cyrano Jones, a licensed prospector. He collects shit and sells it for money...oh, sorry. Credits. Sounds like commerce to me.
So stop with all this nonsense about no commerce, no money, blah blah blah.
People who are so called "casual" fans of Trek, or "admirers" should shut the fuck up and stop talking about a subject you have already stated your not an expert on.

certainly Abrams turned Star Trek into a mundane uselessness beret of it's own identity in his eagerness to make it SW-like, so yeah, you do have a good point there. Truly, the next AbramsTrek movie is a big case of "so fucking what?"

so now the "TOS was still a work in rogress, nothing should be taken too serious from that" is conviniently put aside so that an american who can't concive of a world without capitalism can have his peace of mind and rest his trouble head on the concept of a future world that sounds kinda commie?
You are not impresing me much with your argument there, pal.

I dont know what your referring to, but you addressed nothing that I said about there being commerce in TOS.
Go ahead, tell me it wasn't there, you can't, because it was there.
I never said anything about TOS being a "work in progress" In fact what in your post has anything to do with what I said.
You're not impressing me AT ALL pal.

Anybody? Almost confirmed again huh.... I'm not goning to jump into this Commerce in Trek argument it should be pointed out that the Econonmy portrayed in Trek is one of the bigger inconsistancies in the whole damn franchise.... It tends to change with each iteration and/or writer... So everybody's right and/or wrong, I guess....

TOS was made when the whole ST universe was still under construction. and given the relatively low viewing figures and it's cancelation at season 3, which the producers knew it would happen soon enough since season 2, it seems they gave up on building a more coherent universe for the show, because really, why bother? notice how the internal universe in season 1 is far more consistent then in season two foward.
Nowdays we have a defined ST canon, which didn't existed back in the Tribbles episode. Nowdays, there is a St bible, and there is a canon, and the ST universe is very well established. and in that, there is no capitalism. anybody who woulod give a little fuck about the St saga would at least incorporate that to the new movie. which Abrams, in his Sw obsessed mind, he didn't because he can't give a fuck about ST. and that weasel canp't evne conceive the notion of adapting his style to a story or an established universe, no, the little worm had to bend ST to his liking. Because that's what hacks beret of imagination do. it takes imagination to imprint your style to an already established universe. hack fucks like Abrams instead build paralel universe so he doesn't have to do the effort. and the stupid brand product placement shit in his movie is just on sympton of his disrespectful hackery.

You have always professed your not a Trekkie....
For someone who claims to be a casual fan, you sure seem to think you know everything about the show.
Regardless, so now we "ignore" the canon of TOS? Is this how you can support all of your theories and opinions on all things Trek, because you don't have to acknowledge things that happened in TOS? That show was the basis for all things Trek...but it should be ignored, or at the very least, tossed aside as "incomplete"
Weak. Really weak.
There was commerce in Trek. You just cannot accept it.
But it's ok, no need to elaborate further, I got all the info I need.

just because i'm not a trekkie and a casual watcher doesnp't mean i have to be ignorant about it, does it? this much you will know for sure: you will never see me caugh up dressing in ST gear or learn fucking klingon!!
and i have done more research about St stuff after the fucking Abrams movie. i have always respected St, i always remebering liking it since when i was a kid and the show was aired on Tv in the late 70s. and this is the thing about ST: i'm no expert, but i'm no ignorant either. and i hare respect for the saga. and above all else, and beside the fact the fucking Abrams movie is a bad movie on it's own right, it's the fuckinf disrespect that it shows from start to finish that really rubbed me the wrong way. i don't need to be a trekkie to felel insulted by the callousness of Abrams and his monkey team.
And i never said that there wasn't commerce in Star -Trek. read all my posts and try find me saying otherwise. what i said is that there is no CAPITALISTIC COMMERCE in Trek. There's a difference. if you are going to criticise me, do for something i actually said, please. thank you.

"When you ignore canon, that tends to happen."
But as i said before, canon is established now, quite recently. thanks to efforts to such people as Michael and Denise Okuda. the finalized canon is a recent thing, but it's easy to look up if one just makes an effort. so no, it's not a convinient thing for me. nowdays the canon is established. it's there for anybody to read if one bothers to make the effort. which fucking abrams didn't.

You could say it started with the creation of The Star Trek Encyclopedia writen by Michael and Denise Okuda, first publishe in 1994, and later augmented. Though before that, and starting with TNG, a ST bible was iniciated to create internal consistency for the show. they still allowed some inconsistencies to creep in, which is why teh encyclopedia was comitioned, to smooth stuf out and crate a more coherent and congentent mythology (so the speak).

you killed any atempt at seriousness of your arguents with the toilet shit. end of story. nice chatting with you, but i have nothing more to say to you. next time try to have an actual argument, buy one if you need to. jesus wept!

and it sems people are rewarded by their merit, even though not through the means of great material wealth. it's both a provider for everybody tho have great standards of living, and then reward those who excel by merit and talent.
if the eonomy of ST seems a bit simplified, maybe that's the whole point. so that economy doesn't became such a taxing thing in that society, which is far more oriented to scientific discovery and peacekeeping.

You said : " Both the cost of something and commerce doesn't necessarily means that money and capitalism (including brands) exists.
Money is so ingrated in people's minds that when we say something is costly, the imediate idea is of money and comemrce as we know it. The cost of something means the amount of materials and effort that went to make it. The cost in money reflects that, in a monetary society. In a non-monetary society, to say a ship would be very costly means there was a lot of material, many of them hard to find/exotic, and a lot of work spent to making it. That's a cost. "
That's all fine and good but can you show me where in TOS they established that there are no brands or that money was no longer used?
Yes I knmow they went through WWIII and that society had changed but that in itself doesn't imply that there were no brands or that they didn't use money. TOS only please.